Skip to main content

Full text of "The North Carolina historical review"

See other formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 

North Carolina State Library 


Issued Quarterly 

Volume XLH Numbebs 1-4 


The North Carolina Historical Review 

Christopher Crittenden, Editor in Chief 

Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor 
Mrs. Violet W. Quay, Editorial Associate 

John Fries Blair William S. Powell 

Miss Sarah M. Lemmon Miss Mattie Russell 

Henry S. Stroupe 


McDaniel Lewis, Chairman 

Miss Gertrude Sprague Carraway Ralph P. Hanes 

Robert F. Durden Josh L. Horne 

Fletcher M. Green Edward W. Phifer 

Christopher Crittenden, Director 

This review was established in January, 192 Jf, as a medium of publications and dis- 
cussion of history in North Carolina. It is issued to other institutions by exchange, 
but to the general public by subscription only. The regular price is $4.00 per year. 
Members of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association, Inc., for which 
the annual dues are $5.00, receive this publication without further payment. Back 
numbers still in print are available for $1.00 per number. Out-of-print numbers may 
be obtained on microfilm from University Microfilms, 313 North First Street, Ann 
Arbor, Michigan. Persons desiring to quote from this publication may do so without 
special permission from the editors provided full credit is given to The North Caro- 
lina Historical Review. The Review is published quarterly by the State Department 
of Archives and History, Education Building, Corner of Edenton and Salisbury Streets, 
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601. Mailing address is Box 1881, Raleigh, North Carolina, 
27602. Second class postage paid at Raleigh, North Carolina, 27602. 





Robert N. Elliott, Jr. 



Richard L. Watson 


SOCIETY, 1816-1834 47 

Patrick Sowle 



William J. Donnelly 


"MONTROSE" IN THE 1850'S 85 

John V. Allcott 


Drake, Higher Education in North Carolina Before I860, by William S. Powell . . 96 

Waynick, Brooks, and Pitts, North Carolina and the Negro, 

by David L. Smiley 97 

Stick, The Cape Hatteras Seashore, by Herbert O'Keef 98 

Griffith, Virginia House of Burgesses, 17 50-177 A, 

by Herbert R. Paschal, Jr 98 

Wynes, Southern Sketches from Virginia, 1881-1901, by Elizabeth Cometti 100 

Rose, Rehearsal for Reconstruction: The Port Royal Experiment, 

by T. Harry Williams 101 

Coulter, Joseph V alienee Bevan: Georgia's First Official Historian, 

by William S. Hoffmann 102 

Steel, T. Butler King of Georgia, by Henry S. Stroupe 103 

Stegeman, These Men She Gave, by Norman A. Graebner 105 

Montgomery, Johnny Cobb: Confederate Aristocrat, by Richard W. lobst 106 

Eaton, The Mind of the Old South, by James W. Silver 107 

Craven, An Historian and the Civil War, by Jay Luvaas 109 

Massey, Refugee Life in the Confederacy, by Richard Bardolph Ill 

Bailey, Southern White Protestantism in the Twentieth Century, 

by Suzanne Cameron Linder 112 

Barbour, The Three Worlds of Captain John Smith, by Cecil Johnson 113 

Hall, Leder, and Kammen, The Glorious Revolution in America: 

Documents on the Colonial Crisis of 1689, by Max Savelle 114 

Shumway, Durrell and Frey, Conestoga Wagon, 1750-1850: Freight 
Carrier for 100 Years of America's Westivard Expansion, 
by Percival Perry 116 

Hopkins, The Papers of Henry Clay, Volume III, Presidential 

Candidate, 1821-1824, by Richard D. Goff 117 

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States. Harry S. Truman. 
Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the 
President, January 1 to December 31, 19 U8, 
by Willard B. Gatewood, Jr. 

Other Recent Publications 120 




Charles L. Paul 


Joseph P. Steelman 


1860-1865 169 

James W. Patton 



George V. Taylor 



John G. Barrett 


H. G. Bradshaw 


Norman Larson 


William S. Powell 


Harris, Southern Savory, by Mary Lynch Johnson 232 

Jocher, Johnson, Simpson, Vance, Folk, Region, and Society: Selected 

Papers of Howard W. Odum, by S. H. Hobbs, Jr 233 

Pomeroy and Yoho, North Carolina Lands: Ownership, Use, and Management 

of Forest and Related Lands, by David Thomas 235 

Essays in American History, by Oliver Orr 236 

Morton, Robert Carter of Nomini Hall: A Virginia Tobacco Planter 

of the Eighteenth Century, by Robert W. Ramsey 237 

Bonner, A History of Georgia Agriculture, 1732-1860, by D. W. Colvard 238 

Shadgett, The Republican Party in Georgia: From Reconstruction 

Through 1900, by Robert F. Durden 239 

Rogers, Thomas County During the Civil War, by Edward M. Steel, Jr 240 

Wish, Slavery in the South: A Collection of Contemporary Accounts 
of the System of Plantation Slavery in the Southern United States 
in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, by Philip Davidson 241 

McPherson, The Struggle for Equality: Abolitionists and the Negro in 

the Civil War and Reconstruction, by Clifton H. Johnson 242 

Stephenson, Southern History in the Making: Pioneer Historians of 

the South, by H. G. Jones 244 

Tindall, The Pursuit of Southern History: Presidential Addresses 
of the Southern Historical Association, 1935-1963, 
by Thornton W. Mitchell . 246 

Ambrose, Upton and the Army, by Joseph H. Park 247 

Fischer, Lincoln's Gadfly: Adam Gurowski, by Richard N. Current 249 

Lacy, The Meaning of the American Revolution, by Don Higginbotham 250 

Frank, Justice Daniel Dissenting: A Biography of Peter V. Daniel, 

1784-1860, by Richard D. Younger 251 

Filler, History of the People of the United States: From the 

Revolution to the Civil War, by Robert N. Elliott 252 

Koch, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American 

Experiment and a Free Society, by Noble E. Cunningham, Jr 253 

Albright, A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 

by William S. Powell 254 

Other Recent Publications 255 



HIGH TIDE, 1925-1927 275 




James Roy Morrill III 



B. W. C. Roberts 



Paul V. Lutz 



Bruce L. Clayton 


Thomas C. Parramore 


Ramsey, Carolina Cradle: Settlement of the Northwest Carolina Frontier, 

1747-1762, by John Edmond Gonzales 345 

Zuber, Jonathan Worth: A Biography of a Southern Unionist, 

by Charles P. Roland 346 

Porter, Trinity and Duke, 1892-1924: Foundations of Duke University, 

by Wesley H. Wallace 347 

Reynolds and Faunt, Biographical Directory of the Senate of South 

Carolina, 1776-1964, by Daniel M. McFarland 348 

Miller, Mr. Crump of Memphis, by James W. Patton 349 

Ribaut, The Whole & True Discouerye of Terra Florida, 

Giddings, The Exiles of Florida, 

Fuller, The Purchase of Florida: Its History and Diplomacy, 

"Rambler," Guide To Florida, by John J. TePaske 350 

Smith, Loyalists and Redcoats: A Study in British Revolutionary Policy, 

by Christopher Crittenden 352 

Sarles and Shedd, Colonials and Patriots: Historic Places Commemorating 

Our Forebears, 1700-1783, by Stanley South 353 

Knollenberg, George Washington: The Virginia Period, 1732-1775, 

by Gilbert L. Lycan 354 

Clark, Naval Documents of the Revolution, Volume I, by A. M. Patterson 355 

Brown, Baroness von Riedesel and the American Revolution: Journal and 

Correspondence of a Tour of Duty, 1776-1783, by John E. Selby 357 

Prucha, Guide to the Military Posts of the United States, 1789-1895, 

by John D. F. Phillips 358 

Cave, Jacksonian Democracy and the Historians, by Edwin A. Miles 359 

Roland, Albert Sidney Johnston: Soldier of Three Republics, 

by Rembert W. Patrick 360 

Perry, Infernal Machines: The Story of Confederate Submarine and 

Mine Warfare, by James I. Robertson, Jr 362 

Rawley, The American Civil War: An English View, by John G. Barrett 363 

Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877, by Henry H. Simms 364 

Rolle, A Century of Dishonor: The Early Crusade for Indian Reform, 

by Donald E. Worcester 365 

Dunn and Miller, Atlantic Hurricanes, by Beth G. Crabtree 366 

Link, Wilson: Confusions and Crises, 1915-1916, by George Osborn 367 

Freidel, F.D.R. and the South, by Sarah McCulloh Lemmon 369 

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States. Harry S. Truman. 
Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the 
President, January 1 to December 31, 1949, by Willard B. Gatewood, Jr 370 

Posner, American State Archives, by Clifford K. Shipton 371 

Other Recent Publications 374 




John L. Bell, Jr. 


H. G. Jones 



Louis Round Wilson 


Ralph Hardee Rives 



Marvin L. Michael Kay 



James J. Horn 


McColley, Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia, by Lester J. Cappon 465 

Robertson, The Diary of Dolly hunt Burge, by Malcolm C. McMillan 466 

Owsley, The C.S.S. Florida: Her Building and Operations, by 

Thomas C. Parramore 467 

Dunning, Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction, by 

Joe M. Richardson 468 

Stewart, The Burden of Time: The Fugitives and Agrarians, by Guy Owen 469 

Miller, The Case for Liberty, by J. Edwin Hendricks 470 

Cunningham, The Making of the American Party System, 1789-1809, by 

Lawrence F. Brewster 471 

CURRY, The Abolitionists: Reformers or Fanatics? and 

Duberman, The Antislavery Vanguard: New Essays on the Abolitionists, by 

Clifton H. Johnson 472 

Tugwell, How They Became President: Thirty-five Wys to the White House, by 

Frank L. Grubbs, Jr 474 

Other Recent Publications 476 


INDEX .489 

North Carolina State Library 

N. C 

76e 7U>it& &vi<rtt«uz 
*i¥i4t<ntcal Review 


11 *l" " ] ' fHHS' 

- ■:".-* !.!JL»i jlp.fe,\ 

TVutte* 1965 

The North Carolina Historical Review 

Christopher Crittenden, Editor in Chief 

Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor 
Mrs. Violet W. Quay, Editorial Associate 


Miss Sarah M. Lemmon Miss Mattie Russell 

William S. Powell George M. Stephens, Sr. 

Henry S. Stroupe 


McDaniel Lewis, Chairman 

Miss Gertrude Sprague Carraway Ralph P. Hanes 

Robert F. Durden Josh L. Horne 

Fletcher M. Green Edward W. Phifer 

Christopher Crittenden, Director 

This review was established in January, 192A, as a medium of publication and dis- 
cussion of history in North Carolina. It is issued to other institutions by exchange, 
but to the general public by subscription only. The regular price is $4.00 per year. 
Members of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association, Inc., for which 
the annual dues are $5.00, receive this publication without further payment. Back 
numbers still in print are available for $1.00 per number. Out-of-print numbers may be 
obtained on microfilm from University Microfilms, 313 North First Street, Ann Arbor, 
Michigan. Persons desiring to quote from this publication may do so without special 
permission from the editors provided full credit is given to The North Carolina 
Historical Review. The Review is published quarterly by the State Department of 
Archives and History, Education Building, Corner of Edenton and Salisbury Streets, 
Raleigh. Second class postage paid at Raleigh, North Carolina. 

COVER — Old English and Italian architectural versions were presented to Governor 
and Mrs. William A. Graham when they planned to remodel their home, "Montrose," 
in Hillsboro in the 1850's. The reproductions used en the cover are from files of Mr. 
and Mrs. A. H. Graham, Hillsboro. For an article on architectural developments at 
"Montrose," see pages 85 to 95. 

Volume XLII Published in January, 1965 Number 1 



Robert N. Elliott, Jr. 



Richard L. Watson 

SOCIETY, 1816-1834 47 

Patrick Sowle 


William J. Donnelly 

"MONTROSE" IN THE 1850'S 85 

John V. Allcott 




Drake, Higher Education in North Carolina Before I860, 

by William S. Powell 96 

Waynick, Brooks, and Pitts, North Carolina 

and the Negro, by David L. Smiley 97 

Stick, The Cape Hatteras Seashore, by Herbert O'Keef 98 

Griffith, Virginia House of Burgesses, 1? '50-177 k, 

by Herbert R. Paschal, Jr 98 

Wynes, Southern Sketches from Virginia, 1881-1901, 

by Elizabeth Cometti 100 

Rose, Rehearsal For Reconstruction: The Port 

Royal Experiment, by T. Harry Williams 101 

Coulter, Joseph V alienee Bevan: Georgia's First 

Official Historian, by William S. Hoffmann 102 

Steel, T. Butler King of Georgia, by Henry S. Stroupe 103 

Stegeman, These Men She Gave, by Norman A. Graebner 105 

Montgomery, Johnny Cobb: Confederate Aristocrat, 

by Richard W. Iobst 106 

Eaton, The Mind of the Old South, by James W. Silver 107 

Craven, An Historian and the Civil War, by Jay Luvaas 109 

Massey, Refugee Life in the Confederacy, by Richard Bardolph Ill 

Bailey, Southern White Protestantism in the Twentieth 

Century, by Suzanne Cameron Linder 112 

Barbour, The Three Worlds of Captain John Smith, 

by Cecil Johnson 113 

Hall, Leder, and Kammen, The Glorious Revolution in America: 

Documents on the Colonial Crisis of 1689, by Max Savelle 114 

Shumway, Durrell, and Frey, Conestoga Wagon, 1750- 
1850: Freight Carrier for 100 Years of America's 
Westward Expansion, by Percival Perry 116 

Hopkins, The Papers of Henry Clay, Volume III, Presidential 

Candidate, 1821-1824, by Richard D. Goff 117 

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 
Harry S. Truman. Containing the Public Messages, 
Speeches, and Statements of the President, January 1 
to December 31, 19U8, by Willard B. Gatewood, Jr 119 

Other Recent Publications 120 


By Robert N. Elliott, Jr.* 

On September 25, 1690, Benjamin Harris, a former London book- 
seller and publisher who had come to Boston four years before, issued 
Publick Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestic. This was the first 
newspaper to be published in that part of America which became the 
United States. Publick Occurrences was a small paper, measuring but 
six by nine and a half inches, with only three of its four pages printed; 
the fourth was left blank for Bostonians to add their own news when 
they sent their copies to distant friends. 

Harris, dependent largely on visitors to his coffee shop in Boston 
for news, issued a newsier paper than did many of his successors in 
the next century. The first issue contained news about Indians and 
Indian warfare in New England, a suicide in a nearby town, a fire in 
Boston, and the amorous affairs of the royal family in France. It was 
probably this last story, along with another hinting at corruption in- 
volving a government expedition against the Indians, that caused the 
Massachusetts authorities to suppress further publication of Publick 
Occurrences. Samuel Sewall wrote in his diary that the paper gave 
"distaste because it wasn't licensed and for certain passages referring 
to the Mohawks and the French King." At any rate this first colonial 
newspaper ended after publication of but one number. 1 

It was altogether fitting that Boston should become the cradle of 
the newspaper in English Colonial America. It was the largest town 
in the colonies, the center of foreign and intercolonial commerce; and 
the presence there of a literate population containing many lawyers 
and ministers with facile pens placed it foremost as the cultural and 
literary leader of the colonies. Here, also, printing had been first estab- 
lished in 1638 when Harvard College, then but two years old, had 
begun production by its printers of sermons, almanacs, catechisms, law 

* Dr. Elliott is Associate Professor of Social Studies, North Carolina State of the 
University of North Carolina at Raleigh. 

1 Sidney Kobre, The Development of the Colonial Newspaper (Pittsburgh, Pennsyl- 
vania: n.p., 1944), 13-16, hereinafter cited as Kobre, Colonial Newspaper. 

2 The North Carolina Historical Review 

books, psalters, and broadsides. Thus 14 years after the demise of 
Publick Occurrences another venture in newspaper publishing was 
attempted in Boston. 

John Campbell, Boston's postmaster since 1700, began to send out 
handwritten newsletters to merchants and various governors along the 
Atlantic seaboard almost from the day he took office. 2 These contained 
mostly items about shipping and government affairs. The demand for 
these letters soon taxed the postmaster's hand, so he turned to a local 
printer, Bartholomew Green, to print his letter weekly. In this manner, 
the Boston News-Letter, the first continuous American newspaper, was 
issued on April 24, 1704. Campbell's News-Letter carried the line 
"Published By Authority," thereby indicating that the authorities had 
licensed its publication. This meant also that Campbell's news policy 
would harmonize with the party in control. 3 

The News-Letter was slightly larger than Publick Occurrences, 
eight by twelve and three quarter inches, printed on both sides of a 
single sheet. It cost subscribers 2d. a copy or 125. a year. The contents 
consisted primarily of summaries of news from London papers with 
a few items about local affairs— arrivals of ships, political appointments, 
court actions, and the like. At the bottom of the last column were a 
few advertisements. By modern standards it was not a very lively 
newspaper. It persisted, however, and under other publishers and, 
with the addition of Massachusetts Gazette to its title, lasted until 
March, 1776; in its last years, edited by Margaret Draper, it supported 
the loyalist cause. 4 

Within the lifetime of the Boston News-Letter, newspapers were 
introduced into each of the 13 colonies. Most of these papers were 
printed on four pages, each averaging about ten by fifteen inches in 
size. Publication was weekly; though if an important news event broke 
between publication dates an extra or "supplement" was issued. The 
average subscription rate was 10$. or 12s. a year. News primarily of the 
mother country was taken from the London papers. Local news was 
limited to certain outstanding events— the death of an important 
personage, activities of the government, or a major catastrophe. After 
all, towns in Colonial America were small and local happenings gen- 
erally known. The people were interested mainly in the affairs of 

2 Kobre, Colonial Newspaper, 17. 

3 Frank Luther Mott, American Journalism: A History of Newspapers in the United 
States Through 250 Years, 1690 to 19U0 (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 11-14, herein- 
after cited as Mott, American Journalism. 

4 Douglas C. McMurtrie. The Beginnings of the American Newspaper (Chicago, 
Illinois: Black Cat Press, 1935), 5. 

James Davis and the Newspaper 3 

England. They were, generally speaking, English frontiersmen con- 
nected, if not by family ties, certainly by commercial and political 
interests, with England. 

Editorials as such were missing from the colonial newspaper, but 
at the same time objective news reporting characteristic of the modern 
newspaper was not a style used by the colonial publisher. His story 
written in the form of an essay was often, if the occasion warranted it, 
interspersed with editorial comment. Then, too, discussion of public 
affairs was carried on through contributed letters, sometimes written 
by the publisher himself, and all bearing pen names. 

Copy of all sorts— news of other colonies, of England and the con- 
tinent, features such as sermons, poems, essays, and letters— was ob- 
tained from the newspapers exchanged by the colonial printers and 
from newspapers brought in by ship captains from overseas. This 
source was supplemented with letters received by local citizens and 
reports relayed by travelers. In no sense did a colonial publisher, even 
in larger towns, have access to a formal news gathering agency. 

"Gazette" was the most popular title for the colonial newspaper. 
This stemmed from the prestige enjoyed by The London Gazette, 
the official newspaper of the British government. Hence if a publisher 
wished to imply or convey a semiofficial status for his paper he titled 
it "Gazette." 5 

This custom was especially popular in the southern colonies. William 
Parks, official printer to Lord Baltimore's province in Maryland, began 
this trend when, in 1727, he began the Maryland Gazette. It was con- 
tinued in South Carolina by Thomas Whitmarsh who, in 1732, started 
the South Carolina Gazette at Charleston. Four years later, in 1736, 
William Parks, who had become official printer to Virginia, established 
at Williamsburg the first Virginia Gazette. 6 Thus North Carolinians, 
whose commercial and cultural ties were with Williamsburg or Charles- 
ton, had access to a local newspaper well before the press was estab- 
lished in that colony. 7 And in the Virginia Gazette of Parks they had 
one of the most handsome newspapers published in the colonies; a 
journal especially distinguished for its literary quality. Parks had oper- 

5 Mott, American Journalism, 43-65; Clarence S. Brigham, Journals and Journeymen 
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1950), 12, hereinafter cited as 
Brigham, Journals and Journeymen. 

8 Clarence Saunders Brigham, History and Bibliography of American Newspapers, 
1690-1820 (Worcester, Massachusetts: American Antiquarian Society, 2 volumes, 
1947), I, 218; II, 1,037, 1,158. 

7 That these two newspapers circulated in North Carolina may be inferred from the 
number of North Carolina items, especially advertisements, appearing in their pages. 
Also, as late as 1777, the Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg) published by Alexander 
Purdie and John Dixon, and later by Dixon and William Hunter was advertised in 
The North Carolina Gazette (New Bern), July 18, 1777. 

4 The North Carolina Historical Review 

ated presses and published newspapers in England before coming to 
the colonies. 8 Like Benjamin Harris of Publick Occurrences, Parks 
brought to colonial journalism the more advanced newspaper heritage 
of England. 

William Parks provided North Carolina with more than just a good 
newspaper. From his shop in Williamsburg this colony acquired its 
first printer, James Davis. After some years of indecision, North Caro- 
lina's Assembly agreed to authorize a revision of its laws and then, in 
1749, decided to establish a public printing office to print this revision. 
James Davis was named to that office at a salary of £160 proclama- 
tion money. He arrived in New Bern and set up his press June 24, 
1749. 9 

Not much is known about the early life of James Davis. He was born 
in Virginia, October 21, 1721; where is not known. But in 1745 he was 
living in Williamsburg. 10 Whether he received training in his art from 
William Parks is also not clear. Davis, however, was a skilled printer. 
The only printer in either Virginia or Maryland after 1725 was William 
Parks. Parks left Maryland to locate in Williamsburg in 1734; he had 
been operating a branch shop there since 1730. His successor in An- 
napolis was Jonas Green, who did not come to Annapolis until 1738. 
At that time Davis was seventeen years old, a little old to begin an 
apprenticeship. To go to Charleston or Philadelphia, the nearest print- 
ing offices, or elsewhere in the colonies, was an expensive undertaking 
at that time. It seems logical, then, to assume that Davis learned his 
trade under Parks. This certainly would be no discredit to James 
Davis, for William Parks was as skilled as any printer in the colonies. 

The record is equally uncertain about the source of Davis' printing 
equipment. Colonial printers used a wooden printing press, much like 
those used by Gutenberg and the pioneers of printing in the late 
fifteenth century. With such a press a good, stout pressman could 

8 Lawrence C. Wroth, "North America (English Speaking)," in R. A. Peddie (ed.), 
Printing: A Short History of The Art (London, England: Grafton, 1927), 351-352, 
hereinafter cited as Wroth, "North America." 

9 See Mary L. Thornton, "Public Printing in North Carolina, 1749-1815," The North 
Carolina Historical Review, XXI (July, 1944), 183-191, for complete account of Davis' 
public printing career; Walter L. Clark (ed.), The State Records of North Carolina 
(Winston, Goldsboro, and Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 16 volumes and 4-volume 
index [compiled by Stephen B. Weeks for both Colonial Records and State Records], 
1895-1914), XXIII, 314-315, hereinafter cited as Clark, State Records. Davis was not 
the first experienced printer to come to North Carolina. Hugh Meredith, Benjamin 
Franklin's partner in Philadelphia, retired and came to North Carolina in 1732, where 
he remained until 1739. Carl Van Doren, Benjamin Franklin (New York: The Viking 
Press, 1938), 100-101, 117. 

10 William S. Powell, The Journal of the House of Burgesses, of the Province of North- 
Carolina, 17 A9 (Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History, 1949), ix, here- 
inafter cited as Powell, Journal House of Burgesses. 

James Davis and the Newspaper 5 

turn out about 200 impressions an hour. Occasionally some versatile 
printer like Christopher Sower in Pennsylvania built a press for his 
own use, but until after 1769, when press building became common 
in Philadelphia and Boston, presses were imported from England. 
The same was true for type; not until after the Revolution was the 
American printer freed from English type founders, though in 1769 
Abel Buell in Connecticut began to experiment in the manufacture 
of type from blank punch to finished letter. Furthermore, type was 
expensive; so most colonial printers began work with the used type of 
a London printer. 

Paper and ink were another story. William Rittenhouse opened a 
paper mill near Germantown, Pennsylvania, the same year, 1690, that 
Publick Occurrences was issued in Boston. In 1743 William Parks, 
backed by Benjamin Franklin, began a mill near Williamsburg. Be- 
fore 1765 there were nine mills operating in the colonies. But it is 
doubtful that they provided sufficient paper to supply the printing 
trade, especially for finer printing. In all probability, Davis, along with 
other printers, was dependent on England for much of his paper. Ink, 
however, was available in the colonies. 11 

A typical print shop in the American colonies contained two presses, 
type, and the necessary forms, rules, and other appurtenances in 
sufficient quantity to enable the printer to produce books, a weekly 
newspaper, and the daily job work that came to his shop. Books, such 
as the Journals and the revisal of the laws produced by James Davis, 
used up a great quantity of type. Often the forms were left standing 
—that is, they were not broken up and the type redistributed until 
the job was completed. To provide enough type for this kind of 
work and still have enough available for other productions such as 
a newspaper, required quite an outlay of capital. For example, the 
shop of Jonas Green in Annapolis contained over 2,000 pounds of 
type of varied sorts. The value of the type greatly exceeded the total 
value of all the rest of his equipment. The total appraisal of such 
a shop amounted to nearly £ 100 sterling. 12 When James Davis' shop 
was destroyed by a hurricane in 1769 he doubtless sustained a great 
loss, for not only was his "house a mere wreck," but also his printing 
office was "broke to pieces, his papers destroyed and types buried 

"Lawrence C. Wroth, The Colonial Printer (Portland, Maine: The Southworth- 
Anthoensen Press, 1938), gives a description of the mechanics of eighteenth-century 

12 Worth, "North America," 330. 

6 The North Carolina Historical Review 

in the sand." The <£3 he received from the Assembly for his loss of 
money was small recompense indeed. 13 

It is doubtful, of course, that when Davis came to New Bern he 
had as complete a shop as that of Jonas Green. To print the procla- 
mation money, 14 his first work, and the Journal of the House of 
Burgesses issued late in 1749, he needed only a small font of type 
and a press. About this time, however, he began work on the revision 
of the laws, for which he had been hired. Governor Gabriel Johnston 
wrote December 21, 1749, that the revisal is "now in the press." 15 
Though Governor Johnston expected this to be completed by the 
middle of the next summer, it was advertised in The NOth Carolina 
Gazette of November 15, 1751, as "just publish'd." This may have 
been, however, a second edition, which included the laws passed 
at the September 26-October 12, 1751, session of the Assembly. An 
earlier edition, bearing the same imprint date, 1751, ended with the 
laws of 1750. Meanwhile, Davis had printed the Journal for the 
Assembly session of 1750, was at work on the one just over, pre- 
sumably had done job work, and in August, 1751, had begun The 
NOth Carolina Gazette. Whether he printed "the Speeches and 
Addresses at the Opening of each Session," as required by the act 
establishing his office, 16 is not known. In any case, to have produced 
the work he is known to have done required a well equipped shop. 

Where Davis acquired his type and equipment must be con- 
jectured; available records give no hint. One such attempt was made 
by William S. Powell, 17 a competent student of early North Carolina 
history. He compared certain printed works of Davis with those of 
William Parks and noted a striking similarity in the type used by the 
two men. Then he compared the work of William Hunter, who suc- 
ceeded Parks in the operation of the Williamsburg press when the 
latter died in 1750, and found no such similarity. Mr. Powell suggested 
that "perhaps Parks purchased a new supply of type and sold all or 
part of his old fonts to Davis." This quite possibly was the case, for 
otherwise Davis would have had to buy type from England or from 
another colonial printer. Had he done so the similarities observed by 
Mr. Powell would not have been apparent. As to the source of Davis' 
press or presses, even conjecture is of no help. Nevertheless, James 

"William L. Saunders (ed.), The Colonial Records of North Carolina (Raleigh: 
State of North Carolina, 10 volumes, 1886-1890), VIII, 74, 136-137, hereinafter cited 
as Saunders, Colonial Records. 

14 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 1,023. 

15 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 924. 

16 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 314-315. 

17 Powell, Journal House of Burgesses, xi. 

James Davis and the Newspaper 7 

Davis began printing in North Carolina with a well equipped shop 
capable, under the direction of a skillful printer, of executing good 
work. His early productions indicated that. 

James Davis was twenty-eight when he came to New Bern in 1749. 
Settled, apparently possessing some money, and with a five-year con- 
tract as official printer to the colony, he established himself in the 
town. One of his first acts was to acquire property. When the Governor 
and Council met in April, 1749, and again that fall, Davis was among 
those applying for land. He was granted 200 acres in Johnston County 
and the same amount in Craven County. 18 Then he obtained several 
lots in New Bern itself; one on the southwest corner of Broad and 
East Front Streets where after March, 1752, he moved his printing 
office from its first location on Pollock Street. 19 While thus providing 
for his economic future, Davis at the same time assured himself a 
domestic future; he married a local widow, Prudence Hobbs, the 
daughter of William Carruthers of Beaufort County. 20 

So prepared, James Davis could link his fortunes to the future of 
New Bern. In 1750 this future looked good. New Bern, founded in 
1710 by Baron Von Graffenried for persecuted Palatines and Swiss, 
had survived the horrors and destruction of the Tuscarora War. It 
was no longer at the edge of the colony. To the north, the Albemarle 
region had long been settled, and south of the town, the Cape Fear 
region was increasing in population. New Bern was thus a centrally 
located town convenient to the more settled portions of the colony. 
Moreover, Governor Johnston had made an effort in 1746— unsuccess- 
ful, however— to make New Bern the official capital of North Carolina. 
As a result, several government offices, including that of the printer, 
were fixed there. 21 This prominence, plus good connections with the 
back country and a fair port on the Neuse River, attracted merchants. 
By the time James Davis arrived and became established, New Bern 
had, perhaps, more mercantile firms than any town in the colony. 22 

These circumstances no doubt prompted Davis to begin a news- 
paper. In August, 1751, from the "Printing-Office, near the Church," 
The NOth Carolina Gazette was issued. The first number of this paper 

18 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 950, 965. 

18 Alonzo T. Dill, Jr., "Eighteenth-Century New Bern," The North Carolina Historical 
Review, XXIII (January, 1946), 53, hereinafter cited as Dill, "Eigrhteenth-Century 
New Bern"; The NOth Carolina Gazette (New Bern), March 13, 1752, July 7, 1753, 
hereinafter cited as The NOth. Carolina Gazette. 

20 Dill, "Eighteenth-Century New Bern," 53. 

21 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 836-837, 844. 

22 Hugh Talmage Lefler and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina : The History of a 
Southern State (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1954), 102, 
hereinafter cited as Lefler and Newsome, North Carolina; Dill, "Eighteenth-Century 
New Bern," 47. 

8 The North Carolina Historical Review 

has not survived; 23 in fact, only six issues are available today. But 
from these one can see what North Carolina's first newspaper was like. 
It was the standard folio of colonial journalism; four pages each 
measuring eight and a half by twelve and a half inches—what printers 
call a crown sheet— and issued weekly. The earliest number extant, 
that of November 15, 1751, was printed two columns to the page, as 
was the last number surviving, that of October 18, 1759. The issue 
of April 15, 1757, was numbered 133, indicating that Davis either 
suspended the Gazette for awhile or that he adopted a new numbering 
system. In either case, between the number issued November 15, 1751, 
and that of October 18, 1759, there was little change in format. In the 
earlier number there was no period after "NOth" and the imprint was 
run under the title on page one. But the issue of April 15, 1757, had 
a period after "NOth." and the imprint appeared at the bottom of the 
back page. The same was true also of the last extant number, October 
18, 1759. The Gazette was available "at Four Shillings, Proclamation 
Money, per Quarter"; and "Advertisements of a moderate Length, 
are inserted for Three Shillings the first Week, and Two Shillings for 
every Week after." 

It is not likely that the contents would appeal to a newspaper sub- 
scriber today, despite Davis' slogan which appeared just under the 
title: "With the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic." Page one 
was usually reserved for an essay, such as "The Temple of Hymen. A 
Vision," in the number for November 15, 1751; or "Reflections on 
Unhappy Marriages," the feature for March 6, 1752. This fare was 
varied, however, for on page one of April 15, 1757, was a letter taken 
from the Bristol-Journal, an English paper. It was signed "Five Mil- 
lions" and addressed "To the Right Honourable W. P., Esq." Doubt- 
less this was William Pitt, just called to lead England in her struggle 
against the French. The writer advised him to avoid the pitfalls of 
public office— bribery, ease, and title. 

News, of course, was not overlooked. It was, however, primarily 
foreign and run under simple headings, such as "London, July 5," 
"Genoa, Sept. 15" or "From The Westminster Journal of July 25." 
This was hardly "fresh" by modern standards, but certainly current 
enough to colonial readers, though three months or more old. Domes- 
tic news was usually run on pages three or four. In the Gazette for 
March 6, 1732, for example, there were stories from Philadelphia, 

23 Charles Christopher Crittenden, North Carolina Newspapers Before 1790 (Chapel 
Hill: The University of North Carolina Press [Volume 20, Number 1, of The James 
Sprunt Studies in History and Political Science] 1928), 11, hereinafter cited as Crit- 
tenden, North Carolina Newspapers Before 1790. 

James Davis and the Newspaper 

■a r> r \ r " r n T A jo a n? 7-* nn rr* • 

y v ^ .zz i\ \j> is A j \ yi v j /i Z^ H/ I I 

i U,\l 

he frefic I , Urmccs, Foreign and D 

•«>•• s<5*5 -^( <,-!»> •<*•» «?« 


Irfeksb tijmm 


&, I IboM 

■ftt God f 

Jbwed i; 

-v t h 

Iduts b Ms 

"Tl» e T^ mb | r ti 15, 175 l' j r ss ? e of rAe NOth Carolina Gazette featured an essav 
of T A%Jh e ^and H H y l X y A VlS1 ° n - Fr0m the SleS ° f the A " hives ' State De^artS 

10 The North Carolina Historical Review 

December 31; Boston, October 21; and New York, December 16. This 
did not always mean that the news included concerned only events 
in the cities named. Under the New York date line just mentioned 
was a story about an epidemic in Honduras which had resulted in 
the death of many, especially women. Affixed to this story in brackets 
was this comment: "A fine Time now, for our Ladies of Pleasure to 
make their Fortunes." Not an editorial, but a shrewd observation by 
Editor Davis. Then under the head "Williamsburg, September 20" 
in the number for October 18, 1759, was a letter from New York, 
dated September 4, 1759, describing the military campaign in the 
Niagara region. This was followed by the headline, "Newbern, Octo- 
ber 18," and this item: 

On Friday last, an Express arrived here from Charles Town [Charleston, 
S. C] on his way to Virginia, with Dispatches from Governor Littleton to 
the Governor of Virginia; the Occasion of which is said to be, the Cherokees 
taking up Arms in Favour of the French; and that they are assembling 
in Bodies to make Depredations on our Frontiers. 

Local news was given its due when the occasion warranted. One 
regrets that more issues of The NOth. Carolina Gazette are not avail- 
able for the period of the French and Indian War. 

Advertising in these few issues of The NOth. Carolina Gazette was 
nearly always found on the back page, printed without display or 
illustration; much like the classified columns of a modern newspaper. 
Besides official notices, such as Acting-Governor Matthew Rowan's 
Proclamation announcing surveys being made by a South Carolina 
commission in Anson County, or the Craven County sheriff's announce- 
ment of a jail break in New Bern, 24 the advertisements were for mer- 
chandise, land or runaway slaves. The arrival of a trading ship was 
also the occasion for advertising. One ship, docked at Beaufort, had 
on board dry goods, hardware, china, medicines, paint, and other 
goods to be sold or exchanged for deerskins, tar, or fur. 25 Too, James 
Davis used the columns of his paper to offer for sale The Laws of 
North Carolina, lampblack, printed forms, and other such wares. 
Advertising was a major source of revenue for the colonial publisher, 
as indeed it is for today's publisher. But of greater significance, ad- 
vertising enables one to gain an insight into the social and economic 

* The NOth. Carolina Gazette, July 7, 1753. 

26 The NOth. Carolina Gazette. October 18, 1759. 

James Davis and the Newspaper 11 

life of a community such as New Bern. This more than makes up for 
the sparseness of local news. 26 

James Davis apparently stopped publication of The NOth. Caro- 
lina Gazette sometime after October 18, 1759. Isaiah Thomas, an 
early historian of colonial newspapers and himself an active printer 
at the time, says the Gazette was discontinued around 176 1. 27 At any 
rate, Davis began a new paper in June, 1764. 

Meanwhile, during the years when he published The NOth. Caro- 
lina Gazette, James Davis was active on other fronts. In 1753 he 
published the Reverend Clement Hall's A Collection of Many Chris- 
tian Experiences, the first nonlegal book by a citizen of North Caro- 
lina to be published in the colony. Hall was rector of St. Paul's 
Church in Edenton. 28 But publication was incidental to Davis' other 
activity that year; he became involved in politics. In 1753 he was 
made a member of the Craven County Court, an office he held for 
twenty-five years. One of his first duties was the supervision, with 
another member, of the construction of a new courthouse in New 
Bern. 29 The next year he was elected sheriff of Craven County, and 
while holding this office was chosen by the electorate of New Bern 
to represent them in the Assembly. This, however, was highly irregu- 
lar; the House refused to seat him, deciding that he was "not Quali- 
fyed to serve as a Member for the Town of New Bern he having been 
Sheriff of Craven County at the time of his Election." Davis appar- 
ently preferred a career in the Assembly to that of sheriff, for he 
resigned the latter office and in 1755 was again elected to the As- 
sembly. 30 

In 1756 Davis was returned to the Assembly by the people of New 
Bern. Among several bills that he introduced during this session, 
was one that provided for an improvement in the local government 
of New Bern. It passed to become the first municipal election and tax 
law for New Bern. 31 Up to this time every able-bodied resident in 
New Bern was expected to work on the streets. Under Davis' bill, 
citizens were permitted to tax themselves to pay for this work. Also 

28 For sample advertising in eighteenth-century North Carolina newspapers, see 
Wesley H. Wallace, "Cultural and Social Advertising in Early North Carolina News- 
papers," The North Carolina Historical Review, XXXIII (July, 1956), 281-309. 

"Isaiah Thomas, The History of Printing in America (Worcester, Massachusetts: 
American Antiquarian Society Proceedings, Volumes V and VI, 1874), VI, 167. 

28 William S. Powell, "Eighteenth-Century North Carolina Imprints: A Revision and 
Supplement to McMurtrie," The North Carolina Historical Review, XXXV (January, 
1958), 56. 

29 Dill, "Eighteenth-Century New Bern," 53. 

80 Julian P. Boyd, "The Sheriff in Colonial North Carolina," The North Carolina His- 
torical Review, X (April, 1928), 174-175; Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 245, 529. 
"Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 672; Clark, State Records, XXIII, 451-456. 

12 The North Carolina Historical Review 

town commissioners, who before had been appointed by the Assem- 
bly, could now be elected by the citizens. 

Davis went back to the Assembly in 1757; and this time he turned 
his attention to commerce. In the spring session he introduced a bill 
to improve navigation at Port Bath. That fall he presented a memorial 
from various merchants for improving the inspection law on certain 
commodities exported from the colonies, and he was appointed to 
the committee to draft such a bill. 32 

For two additional years Davis represented New Bern in the 
Assembly, bringing in bills for the improvement of public ferries 
and the completion of the courthouse begun under his supervision 
several years before. 33 Then in 1760 he was chosen to represent 
Craven County. At this session, however, he was not as active as he 
had been previously; in fact, he was fined for nonattendance. 34 

After this James Davis halted his legislative career for awhile. In 
the meantime, in 1755, he had become New Bern's postmaster. This 
job was compatible with his work as a newspaper publisher. Then in 
October of that year when North Carolina's Assembly established its 
first postal service, Davis was awarded the contract. By this act, 
Davis obliged himself, for the sum of £ 100 10s. 8d., "to send all pub- 
lick letters, Expresses and Dispatches relating to this Province to any 
Part thereof for the service of the same and once every Fifteen Days 
send to Suffolk in Virginia and Wilmington on Cape Fear River for 
the publick a proper messenger to receive Letters and Dispatches at 
these places; to be conveyed where directed for the full Term of one 
year." 35 This contract was renewed the next year; but in 1757 Gov- 
ernor Arthur Dobbs complained of Davis' negligence. The Assembly 
then divided the contract among three applicants. Davis obtained the 
route from New Bern to Wilmington for which he was paid <£40. The 
next year, however, he received the entire contract again. 36 

No doubt the establishment of a public postal route relieved Davis 
of one problem. In 1752 he was censured by the Assembly for not 
delivering to the members the printed laws and journals to which 
they were entitled. In his defense, Davis claimed that he had sent 
them, in some instances several times over. But he had not done so 
by a special messenger. To have employed such, he said, would have 
meant "a Considerable Reduction in his Salary, so much that it will 

32 Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 840, 898. 

33 Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 1,051, 1,152; VI, 145, 168. 

84 Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 164, 493. 

85 Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 555-556, 734. 

30 Clark, State Records, XXII, 735; Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 920, 1,038. 

James Davis and the Newspaper 13 

scarce be worth his while to keep a Press, especially as his whole 
Salary is not much above half what every other Public Printer in 
America has." 37 Nevertheless, the censure stood. Nor were matters 
helped any in 1754 when his printing contract was renewed for three 
years at the same old salary of <£160. The next year, however, the 
Assembly relented and voted Davis an extra allowance of <£20 "for 
his extraordinary Service in his Office this Session inclusive." 38 

When, in 1757, this contract expired, the Assembly having "found 
by experience that a Printing Office is of great utility to this Province 
and very much tending to the Promotion of useful Knowledge among 
the people," Davis was reappointed for another three-year term. But 
in 1760 it was renewed for a one year term only, though his salary 
was raised to <£200. 39 But in 1762, Henry Eustace McCulloch, a 
member of the Council from Wilmington, tried to get the job for 
Alexander Purdie, later to achieve distinction as copublisher with 
John Dixon of William Parks' old Virginia Gazette at Williamsburg. 
The House, however, refused to concur and Davis was again named 
public printer. 40 

It is not clear whether or not McCulloch's attempt to replace Davis 
as public printer was inspired by Governor Dobbs' dissatisfaction 
with Davis. But there was no doubt about the Governor s attitude 
when the question of Davis' appointment came up in 1764. After 
the Council, acting as Upper House, had killed the House resolution 
naming Davis public printer, Dobbs sent a letter to the Speaker say- 
ing he could "never approve of the late Printer appointed by the 
Assembly upon account of his negligence. . . ." The House accepted 
this and appointed a committee to find a new printer. For one 
reason or another they were not at once successful, but Governor 
Dobbs was. He found Andrew Steuart in Philadelphia and informed 
the House that he had appointed him "His Majesty's Printer." 
Upon hearing this the members adopted and sent a stinging resolu- 
tion to the Council; the House declared: "We know no such Office 
as his Majesty's Printer of this Province and of no Duties Fees or 
Emoluments annexed or incident to such Office and that the said 
appointment is of a new and unusual nature unknown to our Laws, 
and is a violent stretch of power." The Governor and Council, of 
course, retorted that it was the King's "undoubted prerogative to 
nominate and appoint a Printer to publish his proclamations and 

37 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 1,344-1,345. 

38 Clark, State Records, XXV, 266; Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 555. 

39 Clark, State Records, XXV, 349, 455-456. 

40 Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 913. 

14 The North Carolina Historical Review 

orders of government, and to publish his laws"; the only right the 
House had was "to appoint a Printer to publish their votes and resolu- 
tions during their sessions." Whereupon the House resolved that 
James Davis "be appointed to Print the Laws & Journals of this Session 
of Assembly"; that Andrew Steuart be paid <£ 100 for his expense and 
trouble in coming to North Carolina; and that the treasurers not 
pay out any money "without the Concurrence or direction of this 
House." 41 In short, if the Governor wanted his own printer he could 
also provide his salary. Thus did James Davis secure reappointment 
in 1764 and North Carolina get another printer. 

During the hassle over his appointment as public printer, Davis 
began in New Bern a second newspaper. This was The North-Carolina 
Magazine; or Universal Intelligencer. The earliest issue located is 
that of July 6, 1764, Vol. 1, No. 5. Counting back, Davis must have 
started this paper June 8, 1764. Despite the title, The Magazine was 
a newspaper, 42 containing the current news, advertisements, and other 
items common to colonial newspapers. In size, however, and the 
method of numbering the pages consecutively throughout a volume, 
it did resemble a magazine. For the first year— until the issue for 
December 28, 1764— The North-Carolina Magazine consisted of eight 
pages, each six and three quarters by nine and a half inches, known to 
printers as a quarto. With the issue for December 28, The Magazine 
was reduced to four pages; no issues beyond January 18, 1765, are 
known. The North-Carolina Gazette of February 26, 1766, however, 
which Andrew Steuart began in Wilmington in September, 1764, 
quotes "a New Bern" paper of January 14, 1766. And Frangois X. 
Martin, who published a newspaper in New Bern after the Revolution, 
using Davis' press and equipment, mentions in his history of North 
Carolina that Davis published The Magazine until about 1768. 43 In any 
event, Davis returned to his old title and format May 27, 1768, when 
he began The North-Carolina Gazette. 

Subscribers paid Ad. & number for The North-Carolina Magazine 
which Davis published each Friday. Apparently he expected his 
readers to save their copies and have them bound— preferably at his 
shop no doubt, for he also did bookbinding. In his imprint he an- 
nounced that "Any single Number may be had to complete Setts, 

41 Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 1,122, 1,200, 1,209, 1,256, 1,318. 

42 Clarence S. Brigham, Journals and Journeymen, 15-18, clarifies the identity of a 
periodical in Colonial America as a newspaper or magazine. 

43 Francois-Xavier Martin, The History of North Carolina, from the Earliest Period 
(New-Orleans, Louisiana: A. T. Penniman & Co., 2 volumes, 1829), II, 186. 

James Davis and the Newspaper 15 

at 4d." Davis charged the same advertising rate as when he published 
The NOth. Carolina Gazette; that is, "Three Shillings the first Week, 
and Two Shillings for every Continuance." 

In retrospect, 1764 was a good year to have begun a newspaper in 
Colonial America. England had just won the long war with France 
and had emerged from the conflict with a large colonial empire and 
a huge debt. In an effort to cope with both these problems, English 
ministries began in 1763 a policy that resulted, some twelve years 
later, in a final rupture between England and her American colonies. 
Among the first measures adopted was the American Revenue Act, 
introduced in Parliament in March, 1764, by the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer, George Grenville. Two provisions of this act, one levying 
duties on foreign sugar and certain commodities imported into the 
colony and the other tightening up the customs service, had just gone 
into effect when Davis began The North-Carolina Magazine. A third 
provision, that of prohibiting the issuance of legal tender currency in 
the colonies, became effective that fall. 

Quite naturally, then, these measures and their reception in Colonial 
America, occupied a prominent place in Davis' newspaper. For ex- 
ample, in the number for August 3, 1764, Davis began a reprint of 
the Sugar Act which ran through the next issue, taking up so much 
space he was prevented from running much else, "which," he hoped, 
"our readers will excuse." Then in the following number, that of 
August 17, he ran the text of the Currency Act, and, in this same 
number, began publishing a petition, which had been sent George 
III, protesting England's failure to exact an indemnity from France. 
This was concluded in the issue of August 24. It was signed "The 
People of Great Britain," to which Davis added, "To these the Printer 
here presumes to add, And the Good People of America: who will 
say Amen." For his paper of November 9 Davis chose a letter which 
had appeared in the Boston Gazette and Country Journal of Septem- 
ber 24 denouncing the Sugar Act, and the address adopted by New 
York's Assembly opposing the entire Revenue Act. Then on Novem- 
ber 16 he ran a letter from The New Hampshire Gazette (Ports- 
mouth), also in opposition to the Revenue Act, and reported that 
the people of Boston had agreed to cease all pomp and display at 
funerals in protest of the act. But the climax of his handling of the 
Revenue Act was the publication of James Otis' "The Rights of the 
British Colonies Asserted and Proved," which Davis titled "Of the 
Political and Civil Rights of the British Colonies." This ran through 
five numbers of The Magazine, beginning in that of November 23, 

16 The North Carolina Historical Review 

1764. In this same number he reprinted the address of the House 
to Governor Dobbs at the opening of the Assembly meeting in Wil- 
mington a few weeks before. In this the members thanked the Gov- 
ernor for his efforts to improve trade and commerce in the colony; 
but, they reminded him, "your Excellency will permit us to observe 
the Dilemma we are in at this Conjuncture: We once esteemed it our 
inherent Right, as British Subjects, that no Tax could be imposed 
upon us, but where we were legally represented; depending on the 
fundamental Principles of the British Constitution; but, unhappy for 
us and every Colony in America, we now too fatally experience the 
Contrary: In this depressed Condition, every Attempt towards im- 
provements appears useless." Whatever the lack of editorials in 
colonial journalism, an editor could succeed in conveying his opinion 
of a particular issue. 

And Davis did this well in still another issue on a matter of local 
interest. The question of whether North Carolina's capital was to 
be Wilmington or New Bern assumed special concern when it became 
known that Governor Dobbs was returning to England for a leave. 
His place was to be taken by a lieutenant-governor as yet not known. 
On August 10, 1764, Davis reported that a story from Wilmington 
announced that "one Col. Tryon, an Officer in the Guards" had been 
"appointed at Home" Lieutenant-Governor of North Carolina, and 
that Governor Dobbs expected to leave for England the next March. 
To this story Davis added the following: 

The good people of Wilmington, ever intent on the Good of the Province, 
and always foremost in every Scheme for its Welfare and internal Quietude, 
immediately upon this News, engaged a large House in Wilmington for the 
Reception and Accommodation of the Governor on his Arrival in the 
Province, upon a Certainty that he will settle among them there. But the 
People of Newbern, having, for their Disobedience, drank largely of the 
the Cup of Affliction, and entirely depending on the Goodness of their 
Cause, have engaged a large genteel House in Newbern, for the Governor's 
Residence; upon a Supposition he will settle rather in the Centre of the 
Province, than at Cape-Fear, a Place within Fifty Miles of the South 
Boundary of a Province almost 300 Miles wide, and the Passage to it 
gloomy and dismal, through hot parching Sands, enliven' d now and then 
with a few Wire-Grass Ridges, and Ponds of stagnant Water ; . . . But as 
the Passage, so the Entrance, dismal; — a Turkey 15s. a Fowl 2s. 8d. a 
Goose 10s. Butter 2s. 8d. and so pro Rata for every Thing else. — Terrible 
Horribility. 44 

44 The North-Carolina Magazine (New Bern), August 10, 1764, hereinafter cited as 
The North-Carolina Magazine. 

James Davis and the Newspaper 17 

The attack on Wilmington and its hopes was followed by a full 
account of the whole controversy over the location of the capital, 
balanced in favor of New Bern's claim, of course, and titled "New- 
bern's Remembrancer: or, An Essay on the Seat of Government 
—about as ambitious a headline as he ever attempted. Concluding 
was this appeal: 

Countrymen, as the Assembly stands prorogued to some time in October 
next, and will then probably meet at Wilmington, your Constituents, your 
Country, expect that you will, to a Man, give your Attendance ; or perhaps 
while we are pleasing ourselves with these Golden Scenes, the Great Fiat 
may be passed, and the Door shut against you; the Seat of Government 
may be Settled at Wilmington, and then, too late, we may behold the 
wretched State of the Province. They have already got the Press there 
and intend to Give Law to us all ; and if you neglect your Duty This Time, 
imagine what will be done. Can you Contentedly, see the Province in this 
Discontented State! Can you see the Public Records Carted from Place 
to Place, and your Properties and Estates trusted to the Mercy of a 
Shower of Rain, and at the Discretion of a Cart-Driver! Forbid it Heaven ! 
Temporal 45 

Then, on September 28 Davis, apparently having it on good authority 
that Tryon favored New Bern as the location of the capital, wrote 
in his paper: 

Mourn, Mourn, ye Wilmingtonians, and put on Sack cloth and Ashes, 
for the Measure of thy Good Things is full, and the evil-Day is coming 
upon thee ! Mr. Tryan [sic] , if we have any Skill in Augury, is coming to 
live in Peace among us, and deliver us from unleavened Bread; which 
nothing but his Residence on the Grassy Plains can restore and accom- 
plish. 46 

On November 2, 1764, under a Wilmington date line of October 17, 
Davis reported that Tryon with his family had arrived and been duly 
welcomed in Wilmington. The next week, November 9, he had news 
of another distinguished visitor, this time to New Bern. This was the 
famous evangelist George Whitefield who had passed through on his 
way to Georgia. "At the Request of the Gentlemen" of New Bern, 
Davis wrote, the Rev. Whitefield stayed over through Sunday "and 
preached a most excellent Sermon in our Church" to a large and 
crowded audience. After reference to the expected adjournment of 
the Assembly "now sitting at Wilmington" Davis reported that 

45 The North-Carolina Magazine, August 24, 1764. 
*° The North-Carolina Magazine, September 28, 1764. 

North CaroUna State Library 

18 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Lieutenant-Governor Tryon intended making a tour through North 
Carolina and was shortly expected in New Bern. But before he arrived 
"a Quaker Preacher, and his Wife" paid New Bern a visit and 
preached "to a Numerous Audience." The doctrines "which they 
chiefly handled," Davis observed, "Were Original Sin, and the 
Necessity of Regeneration; Moral Reflections on the luxuries, Pomp 
and Vanities of the World and a particular Caution to the young 
Ladies against Dress." Davis noticed "that the Caution and Advice to 
the Ladies, was delivered by the Preacher's Wife, who seem'd to have 
a more than common Influence of the Holy Spirit; as her Doctrine 
was delivered with great emphatic Energy and Elocution." 4T 

Finally the day of Tryon's visit arrived, and from Davis' description 
of the reception New Bern gave the Governor, it easily matched the 
energy and elocution attributed to the Quaker preacher's wife. A 
"great number of Gentlemen" met Colonel Tryon eight miles from 
town and escorted him into New Bern where he received the salute 
of "19 guns from the Artillery." That night "the Town was hand- 
somely illuminated, Bonfires were lighted, and plenty of Liquor given 
to the Populace." The next evening a "very elegant Ball" was held in 
the "Great Bali-Room in the Court House," in honor of the Governor, 
at which "were present His Honour the Governor, and his Lady, the 
Mayor, Mr. Recorder, and near 100 Gentlemen and Ladies." About 
ten they had supper, and then all returned to the ball room "and 
concluded the Evening with all imaginable Agreeableness and Satis- 
faction." The next day the Masons honored the Governor with "an 
elegant Dinner" where "the usual and proper healths were drank." 
After a week in New Bern, Tryon left for Edenton, no doubt impressed 
with New Bern's hospitality, if not the town itself. 48 

No issues of The North-Carolina Magazine survive beyond that of 
January 18, 1765, so Davis' response to the decision to make New 
Bern the capital is not known. This action was taken by the Assembly 
in November, 1766. 49 One can assume that he used all the journalistic 
devices at his command to applaud the Assembly's decision. 

Neither do the issues exist that reported the death of Governor 
Dobbs who, on the eve of his return home, died at Brunswick, near 
Wilmington, March 28, 1765. Davis had little reason to be fond of 
the Governor, but this is hardly cause to expect that he published 
anything derogatory. Faced with the death of the Royal Governor, 

* 7 The North-Carolina Magazine, December 14, 1764. 

48 The North-Carolina Magazine, December 28, 1764; January 4, 1765. 

49 Lefler and Newsome, North Carolina, 165. 

James Davis and the Newspaper 19 

Davis doubtless rose to the occasion with appropriate language and 
the customary style of turned rules wreathing the story in black 

In all probability there was some substance in Governor Dobbs' 
charge in 1764 that Davis had been negligent in performing his duties. 
Not only had he been involved in getting The North-Carolina Maga- 
zine underway, but also in that same year, entirely on his own, he 
published a new revisal of the laws, the second since that officially 
published in 1751. And he began taking subscriptions for another 
work, The Office and Authority of a Justice of Peace. 50 

In the sixteen years since Davis had come to North Carolina, the 
printing press and newspaper had become important institutions in 
the life of New Bern and the colony. As printer, publisher, and citizen 
James Davis was established. One historian of Colonial America has 
said, "the role of printer in colonial life . . . offered a man of ability 
and ambition a greater chance to exercise influence over public policy 
than even the ministry." 51 To what extent this was true of James 
Davis it is difficult to say. But there is no question that he used his 
position and his talents to their fullest extent. From his printing office 
flowed the necessary journals and laws, well executed and free from 
error, vital to effective government. In his service in New Bern's 
government, and as legislator, he acted in the best tradition of the 
colonial printer. His NOth. Carolina Gazette and Magazine satisfied 
the cultural, political, and commercial needs of his readers in a 
way that no other printed matter did. News hunger is basic to human 
nature, and in a democratic society, even one as primitive as that exist- 
ing in Colonial America, the need for serious news— the necessity to 
know what others are doing and thinking— is essential to reaching 
responsible decisions. As William Hunter's Virginia Gazette, in Wil- 
liamsburg, described it, the newspaper provides the people with 
"security against Errors, ... no false doctrine in Religion, Policy or 
Physic, can be broached, and remain long undetected. ... It is their 
great Preservation against political Empericism." 52 The two papers 
published by Davis, though not as distinguished perhaps as those in 
Williamsburg, or in Boston or Philadelphia, did their part. 

How many readers Davis had is not known; certainly it was not 
many, for the number of people in North Carolina who could afford, 

60 The North-Carolina Magazine, July 6, 1764. 

61 Carl Bridenbaugh, "America's First Man of The World," The New York Times 
Book Review, November 22, 1959, 1. 

62 Quoted in Carl Bridenbaugh, Seat of Empire: The Political Role of Eighteenth- 
Century Williamsburg (Williamsburg, Virginia: Colonial Williamsburg, 1958), 28. 

20 The North Carolina Historical Review 

or even read a newspaper, was small. The record is silent on circula- 
tion figures; one estimate is 100-150. 53 But one thing is certain; with 
little competition for reading time, Davis' newspapers, as well as 
those in Colonial America generally, were read more thoroughly and 
lovingly than is the case with newspapers today. Also, with the scar- 
city of news media, each copy probably passed through many hands. 
What became America's standard reading matter, the newspaper, 
got off to a good start in North Carolina with James Davis and his two 
ventures into newspaper publishing. 

53 Crittenden, North Carolina Newspapers Before 1790, 19. 


By Richard L. Watson, Jr.* 

The senatorial primary in 1930 in North Carolina brought an 
end to the political career of Furnifold M. Simmons, a man who had 
been influential in both state and nation for almost fifty years. A 
study of this Democratic primary should be instructive, however, to 
others than those primarily interested in Simmons' career or in local 
North Caroliniana. The story of the contest, with its personal infight- 
ing, twisting of the democratic processes, use of emotional issues, and 
a lack of attention to things fundamental, serves to illuminate one of 
the principal ingredients in the American political system— the party 
primary. It points up the dilemma of a conscientious senator torn 
among responsibility for national legislation, concern for his local 
constituents, and the desire for re-election. And this particular pri- 
mary of 1930 in North Carolina lends support to the contention that 
bolting a party's nominee is a cardinal sin in American politics and 
leads to something almost as inevitable as divine punishment. 

The story of this primary as it related to North Carolina politics 
has for the most part already been well told. 1 Some of the local de- 
tails, however, call for further emphasis insofar as they contribute to 
an understanding of political techniques in a state such as North 
Carolina; also a consideration of some of the national issues of the 
day as they emerged in the campaign led to a better understanding 
both of those issues and of the relationship between the national 
legislative process and local politics. 

F. M. Simmons entered politics in 1875 at the age of twenty-one. 
For more than ten years he served as chairman of the Democratic 
state committee. In this office, he laid the basis for a political organi- 
zation which was to be a powerful force in North Carolina from 

* Dr. Watson is Professor of History, Duke University, Durham. 

1 Elmer L. Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension in North Carolina, 1928-1986 
(Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press [Volume 44 of The James 
Sprunt Studies in History and Political Science], 1962), hereinafter cited as Puryear, 
Democratic Party Dissension. 

22 The North Carolina Historical Review 

1898 to 1928. Success in leading the Democrats to victory over the 
Republicans and Populists in 1898 and 1900 and in bringing about 
almost complete Negro disfranchisement resulted in his election to 
the United States Senate in 1901. He served as chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee in the Wilson administrations; and during the 
1920's, as ranking Democrat on that committee, he fought Republi- 
can policies and performed innumerable services for his constituents. 

By 1928 his political position seemed secure. Influential nationally, 
respected locally, he expected to be returned to the Senate for the 
sixth time in the election of 1930. He was seventy-four years old, it 
is true, and frequently ill, but he seemed able to rally his strength 
whenever the occasion demanded. He had made enemies in his fifty 
years in politics, but he had numerous friends in strategic positions 
politically, who would not think of hurting "The Senator" so long as 
he lived. 

Then came the presidential campaign of 1928. Since 1924, when 
he had supported his friend William G. McAdoo for the presidency, 
Simmons had distrusted Alfred E. Smith. It was not merely that Smith 
was a Roman Catholic, or a wet, or a Tammany man, that bothered 
Simmons; Smith represented an element, which if successful in 
Democratic politics, would change the nature of the party in which 
the South had played so prominent a role. Simmons fought Smith 
in the preconvention wrangles, and when Smith, after his nomina- 
tion, made John J. Raskob— a wet, a Roman Catholic, and a Republican 
—his campaign manager, Simmons publicly threw his considerable 
influence to the anti-Smith campaign in the state. In spite of the fact 
that he supported the local Democratic candidates, to the professional 
Democrats he had bolted, thereby jeopardizing his nomination in 
1930. 2 

Quietly taking the lead in building up opposition to Simmons was 
Josiah W. Bailey, one of Smith's most vigorous supporters in the 
recent election. Fifty-seven years of age in 1930, he had been grad- 
uated from Wake Forest College in 1893 and immediately afterward 
had become editor of the Biblical Recorder, the weekly newspaper 
of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. In 1898 he asso- 
ciated himself with the Simmons organization and supported Simmons 
for the first twenty years of the century. As a reward for his services, 
Simmons supported his appointment by President Wilson as collector 

2 Richard L. Watson, Jr., C "A Political Leader Bolts— F. M. Simmons in the Presi- 
dential Election of 1928," The North Carolina Historical Review, XXXVII (October 
1960), 516-543. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 23 

of internal revenue for the eastern district of North Carolina. Rela- 
tions between Simmons and Bailey remained friendly until the early 
twenties when Bailey began to be increasingly critical of some of the 
key people in the Simmons organization. 3 Even after Bailey was de- 
feated in 1924 for governor by Simmons' choice, Angus W. McLean, 
the two men remained outwardly cordial, and as late as mid-June, 
1928, Bailey insisted that he would never oppose Simmons. 4 Bailey 
had already enthusiastically endorsed Smith, however, and as the 
campaign went on in 1928, he became increasingly irritated at 
Simmons. After the election he began soundings to discover whether 
anyone would have a chance of defeating the Senator in the primary 
set for June, 1930. He found not only that there was much anti- 
Simmons sentiment, but, what was more interesting, that many 
people were suggesting that he, Bailey, declare as Simmons' op- 
ponent. 5 

As the New Year, 1929, approached, the state's attention turned to 
the inauguration of the new governor, O. Max Gardner, and for the 
next three months to the activities of the state legislature. Even during 
the legislative session, however, pro- and anti-Simmons shadow box- 
ing took place. When the legislature passed an Australian ballot law, 
for example, and put more restrictions on absentee voting, their ac- 
tions were interpreted as slaps at Simmons, who had opposed the 
Australian ballot and who had favored liberal absentee voting. 6 More 
important, another bill was passed by which candidates in primaries 
were required to fill out and sign an official blank stating party 
affiliation and pledging their support in the general elections to "all 

3 John Robert Moore, "The Shaping of a Political Leader: Josiah W. Bailey and the 
Gubernatorial Campaign of 1924," The North Carolina Historical Review, XLI (Spring, 
1964), 190-213. 

* Josiah W. Bailey to C. F. Burroughs, June 19, 1928, Josiah W. Bailey Papers, Duke 
Manuscript Collection, Duke University, Durham, hereinafter cited as Bailey Papers. 

5 See, for example, Bailey to Clyde Hoey, November 12, 1928, Bailey to W. H. S. 
Burgwyn and others, November 13, 1928, Bailey to Harold Burke and others, November 
14, 1928, John Langston to Bailey, November 13, 1928, Robert A. Collier to Bailey, 
November 23, 1928, Jesse H. Davis to Bailey, November 14, 1928, Bailey Papers. See 
also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 23-24. 

6 The News and Observer (Raleigh), January 12, 1929, hereinafter cited as The News 
and Observer. One of the few states not using the standard form of the Australian 
ballot in 1928, North Carolina adopted in 1929 a modified form by which a voter in 
a primary might call for assistance in voting from a member of his family, a poll 
official, or any person approved by the poll officials. The new absentee voting regulations 
no longer permitted a person to secure an absentee ballot for another and required 
posting at the polls the names of absentee voters. The News and Observer, March 24, 
1929; Public Laws and Resolutions Passed by the General Assembly at its Session of 
1929 . . . , cc. 164, 329, hereinafter cited as Public Laws with appropriate year. See also, 
The North Carolina Code of 1927 . . . (Charlottesville, Virginia: The Michie Company, 
1928), c. 97, ss. 5960-5968. 

24 The North Carolina Historical Review 

candidates nominated by" their party. 7 Everyone knew that this bill 
too had been inspired by Simmons' actions in 1928. Governor Gard- 
ner, who was considered by some as the rising organization man in 
state politics, played no open role in the anti-Simmons campaign even 
though he supported the legislation. When, however, in May he 
appointed three new Democrats to the state Board of Elections, they 
all were enemies of Simmons, and the chairman, Judge J. Crawford 
Biggs, "was the first chairman of the state board in many years who 
was considered as an anti-Simmons man." 8 

Throughout 1929, Bailey's activities were either those of a man 
who could not make up his mind, or of one who thought it politically 
expedient to play hard to get. He delivered various "non-political" 
addresses supporting the Eighteenth Amendment, attacking Herbert 
Hoover, and urging the reduction of taxes. He tried to talk down his 
reputation acquired in the mid-twenties of being an economic radical. 
But he continued to advance numerous reasons why he should not 
run— his health, his family, his finances. 9 He particularly wrestled 
with his conscience. He could not forget that in 1917 he had written 
Simmons pledging support and promising never to run against him. 
He was now telling his friends that he had predicated this pledge 
"in my mind upon his remaining loyal to the Party. . . ." 10 

It is impossible to determine what ended Bailey's uncertainty. 
Perhaps he was never uncertain. Several things did happen in the 
summer and fall of 1929, however, that gave encouragement to regu- 
lar Democrats. In the first place, anti-Smith Democrats had not been 
faring well. In Alabama, Roman Catholic-baiting Senator James 
Thomas Heflin, who had opposed Smith in 1928, was ruled out of the 
Democratic party. In the fall elections in Virginia, the regular Demo- 
crats overwhelmed the anti-Smith forces backed by Methodist Bishop 
James Cannon. North Carolinians did not miss the significance of 

7 Public Laws, 1929, c. 26; W. P. Horton to Bailey, November 16, 1928, and J. 0. Carr 
to Bailey, November 16, 1928, Bailey Papers; The News and Observer, February 2, 
1929; Greensboro Daily News, February 2, 1929; Consolidated Statutes of North Caro- 
lina (Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 3 volumes [Volume III, Supplement], 1920- 
1924), III, c. 97, s. 6022. 

8 Frank Hampton to Charles A. Hines, June 4, 1929, and M. L. Shipman to F. M. 
Simmons, September 15, 1929, Furnifold M. Simmons Papers, Duke Manuscript Col- 
lection, hereinafter cited as Simmons Papers; The News and Observer, May 31, June 
9, 1929. 

9 The News and Observer, July 3, 5, 1929; Ira Champion to Hampton, July 3, 1929, 
Simmons Papers; Bailey to R. A. Doughton, May 28, 1929, Bailey to John W. Lambeth, 
May 23, 1929, Bailey to C L. Shuping, November 8, 1929, Bailey to Cameron Morrison, 
November 12, 1929, Bailey Papers. 

10 Bailey to W. B. Jones, September 13, 1929, Bailey Papers. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 25 

these developments. 11 Hours after the Virginia returns were in, 
Simmons received an anonymous telegram warning that the same 
fate awaited "other traitors of the party." Said the telegram, "one 
hundred thousand North Carolina Democrats are awaiting a chance 
at you." 12 

Also, there were several factors which were turning North Caro- 
linians against Hoover and thus against those who had contributed 
to his election. In mid-July Washington society was "shocked" to 
learn that Mrs. Oscar De Priest, wife of Representative De Priest, a 
Negro, had not only been invited to, but also attended, an informal 
tea at the White House. Even though Simmons denounced this act, 
North Carolina regulars were quick to think of the incident as a 
"perfect example of retributive justice." 13 Even more upsetting was 
the undeniable fact that the United States was facing a depression 
for which Hoover was blamed. North Carolina's economic situation 
was becoming desperate, and Simmons, who had indirectly helped 
to elect Hoover, suffered accordingly. 

In short, the climate of opinion was favorable to the Democratic 
regulars, and it seems likely that Bailey was influenced. By mid- 
December he was taking the position that if he could not persuade 
some other Democrat to run, he would be a candidate. He did try to 
persuade Walter P. Stacy, Chief Justice of the North Carolina 
Supreme Court, to announce as a candidate against Simmons. Then 
he turned to W. J. Brogden of Durham. 14 Both refused, and pledged 
their support to Bailey. Bailey had already prepared an announce- 
ment and circulated it to friends. He promised a campaign "of respect 
and courtesy," but one in which he would subordinate "every con- 
sideration to the integrity, the unity, and the victory of the party." 
On January 2, 1930, he publicly announced his candidacy. 15 

Simmons, vacationing at New Bern, awaited public reaction to 
Bailey's announcement. He received quick assurances of support. 
Letters poured in, many describing Bailey as "easy picking." Some 

11 For local press reports, see The News and Observer, June 1-2, November 6, Decem- 
ber 16-17, 1929. 

M "Former Supporter" to Simmons, November 6, 1929, with attached note by Alexander 
M. Walker, Simmons Papers. 

u The News and Observer, June 14, 16, November 18, 1929; Simmons to R. H. Harris, 
June 18, 1929, Simmons Papers. 

14 Bailey to Doughton, November 29, 1929, and Bailey to Morrison, November 28, 
1929, Bailey Papers. 

15 Bailey to W. B. Council, December 26, 1929, and Bailey to Morrison, December 28, 

1929, Bailey Papers; T. B. Ward to Hampton, December 29, 1929, and George Pell to 
Simmons, November 18, 1929, Simmons Papers; The News and Observer, January 3, 

1930. See also, unpublished announcement in Bailey Papers and Puryear, Democratic 
Party Dissension, 25-27. 


The North Carolina Historical Review 



Furnifold M. Simmons, long-time senator from North Carolina, was defeated by 
Josiah W. Bailey in 1930. From files of the State Department of Archives and History. 

writers declared for Simmons because of his experience. Others 
venerated him as the "leader who navigated the ship of State through 
the troublous waters of the 'nineties." "Stay in Washington, keep 
your money, and let your friends, 'the people' look after the election/' 
was the advice of one of his leading supporters. 16 

In spite of the apparent optimism of his friends, Simmons realized 
that he faced fundamental difficulties in organizing his campaign. 
His enthusiastic supporters were the anti-Smith Democrats, number- 
ing by a generous estimate, only 70,000 or 80,000. Since Smith had 
received 286,000 votes in the presidential election, Simmons would 
have to gain about 100,000 Smith votes and keep all the anti-Smith 
votes to win the nomination. 17 Under these circumstances, Simmons' 

16 George Rountree to Simmons, January 16, 1930, and N. C. Hines to Simmons, 
January 3, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

"Simmons to Hines, January 4, 1930, Simmons Papers. The estimate is based on the 
assumption that the anti-Smith Democrats voted for Democrat O. Max Gardner for 
governor in 1928. Smith received 286,227 votes, and Hoover received 348,923. Gardner 
received 362,009 votes for governor, and Republican H. F. Seawell received 289,415. 
H. M. London (ed.), North Carolina Manual, 1931 (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical 
Commission [State Department of Archives and History], 1931), 89, 99; Morning 
Herald (Durham) , January 5, 1930, hereinafter cited as Morning Herald. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 27 


..;:■:::■. : 

Josiah W. Bailey, one of North Carolina's leaders in many fields, won Furnifold M. 
Simmons' seat in the United States Senate in 1930. Photograph by courtesy of Mrs. 
Josiah W. Bailey, Raleigh. 

early moves were exceedingly cautious. Although he announced for 
re-election on January 11 he did not make known his choices for his 
campaign organization until February 19. Then he named two Smith 
supporters, Charles Hines of Greensboro as campaign manager and 
John Langston of Goldsboro as chairman of his campaign advisory 
committee. The anti-Smith forces were represented by Mrs. Charlotte 
Story Perkinson, a dedicated prohibitionist who was named assistant 
manager. 18 

Bailey's hopes lay in the support of the regular Democrats. Thus 
he had most to lose by a campaign that might further divide the party 
and most to gain by effective organization. On February 7, Bailey 
announced that his campaign would be in the hands of Judge James 
J. Manning of Raleigh as chairman of the campaign committee and 
C. L. Shuping of Greensboro as manager. 19 Following this announce- 

18 The News and Observer, January 12, February 21, March 4, 1930; Frank McNinch 
to Simmons, January 18, 1930, and Memo for the Press, March 8, 1930, Simmons Papers. 
See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 28, 32-33. 

18 The News and Observer, February 8, 1930; Bailey to Morrison, January 12, 1930, 
Bailey Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 31. 

28 The North Carolina Historical Review 

ment, Shuping and Manning went to work, keeping "the long dis- 
tance phone busy," setting up precinct organizations and writing to 
approximately 25,000 chosen voters. Bailey began what he called a 
campaign of silence, which permitted public appearances and com- 
mencement addresses, but no official campaign speeches. The aim 
was to eliminate factionalism; and at the same time to point to the 
irony of Simmons' asking "as a reward for his bringing about the de- 
feat of the Democratic party that that party shall choose him in the 
June primary for its Senator of the United States." 20 

In spite of increasing evidence that regulars including the great 
majority of the young Democratic voters were against him, 21 Simmons 
and his leading supporters were not pessimistic. They hoped that the 
prohibition issue would still have appeal, that ministers and women 
voters would rally as they had in 1928, and that the momentum of 
Simmons' long service and prestige would carry him through. Indeed 
the prohibition issue gave Simmons a real advantage in view of his 
close identification with the dry forces in 1928. 22 On the other hand, 
Bailey, though by choice a dry, had not been enthusiastic about 
statutory prohibition in earlier days. Shortly after the announcement 
of his candidacy, however, he pledged that he would support legisla- 
tion for more effective enforcement. Moreover, he let it be known that 
he questioned Simmons' dedication to the dry cause and apparently 
never-repudiated campaign literature which implied that Simmons 
"had been drinking all his life until his doctor stopped him." 23 

Few prohibitionists, however, could have been convinced that Sim- 
mons was not their champion. "Oh, if we can only keep Prohibition, 
Mr. Simmons," wrote one official of the WCTU. "It really ... is difficult 
to tell which direction the United States is going in— when we realize 
what Communism, Socialism, Atheism, the Wets, and the rest of 
that Crowd are doing. . . ." The Anti-Saloon League actively sup- 
ported Simmons, and in April, Ira Champion, one of its principal 
national officials, came to North Carolina to work personally for 
Simmons. Indeed he warned Frank Hampton, Simmons' energetic 

20 Bailey to Morrison, February 10, 1930, James J. Manning to V. 0. Riddle, March 
10, 1930, D. (F.) Batts Shuping, March 21, 1930, Bailey Papers. See also, Puryear, 
Democratic Party Dissension, 30. 

21 Morning Herald, Daily Charlotte Observer, hereinafter cited as Charlotte Observer, 
and The News and Observer, March 15-16, 1930. 

22 The News and Observer, March 29, April 2, 8, 1930; Hampton to J. A. Taylor and 
others, telegram, March 26, 1930, and William G. McAdoo to Simmons, April 14, 1930, 
Simmons Papers. 

23 The News and Observer, January 22, 1930, Bailey to J. P. Tucker, April 1, 1930, 
Bailey Papers; Hampton to the Rev. S. F. Conrad, May 16, 1930, Simmons Papers. See 
also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 38-39. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 29 

secretary, that more money was needed to organize the "ministers 
and the women and the moral forces." If they are not "touched" at 
once, he concluded, "the Senator is gone." 24 

Neither Hampton nor Simmons had to be told that a promising 
source of votes lay with the women voters, and Charlotte Story 
Perkinson assumed the responsibility of rallying the ladies. A cham- 
pion of both prohibition and woman's rights, she insisted that "God 
directs great movements," and "that in His wisdom the Nineteenth 
Amendment was ratified that the Eighteenth Amendment might be 
held." 25 She set up local organizations, wrote campaign tracts, and 
kept in touch with WCTU officials and with the auxiliaries of the 
American Legion. "We can ill afford that his labors in the United 
States Senate should cease," she wrote, "until the Heavenly Father 
shall declare all his good work on earth at an end." 26 

Unfortunately for Simmons, Bailey followers publicized the record 
of the two men on woman suffrage. They could show that Bailey's 
support of it dated from 1917 when a measure to give women the 
vote in municipal elections was introduced into the state legislature. 27 
Simmons at that time had been definitely opposed to woman suf- 
frage. Indeed, he never really favored the Nineteenth Amendment and 
suggested ratification by the North Carolina legislature only to please 
President Wilson. North Carolina leaders in the campaign, who had 
not forgotten Simmons' position, took delight in reminding their 
friends of the irony of Simmons' now calling for the woman's vote. 28 

Simmons' supporters devoted considerable effort to informing re- 
ligious organizations of the moral issues of the campaign. A member 
of his campaign committee was also a district secretary of one of 
the women's missionary societies. She informed the membership that 
she was engaged in "missionary work" in her support of Simmons. 
"None other but a Christian gentleman," she wrote, "could have had 
[the] courage" to oppose Smith in 1928. 29 Simmons himself wrote 

24 Mrs. R. E. Williams to Simmons, April 22, 1930, and Champion to Hampton, April 
30, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

25 The News and Observer, April 24, 1930. 

28 Hampton to J. G. Fearing, February 8, 1930, Charlotte S. Perkinson to Mrs. R. A. 
Harris, March 12, 1930, Perkinson to Mrs. A. D. Frank, March 12, 1930, Perkinson to 
Hampton, April 18, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

27 Bailey to H. W. Lilly, April 7, 1930, Bailey Papers. See A. Elizabeth Taylor, "The 
Woman Suffrage Movement in North Carolina," The North Carolina Historical Review, 
XXXVIII (January, 1961), 45-63; (April, 1961), 173-189, for a detailed study. 

^Woodrow Wilson to Simmons, June 19, 1920, and Simmons to Joseph P. Tumulty, 
April 6, 1920, Woodrow Wilson Papers, Division of Manuscripts, Library of Congress, 
Washington, D.C.; E. Delia Carroll to Editor, The News and Observer, May 16, 1930; 
Gertrude Weil to Manning, April 22, 1930, Bailey Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic 
Party Dissension, 39. 

29 Anna Graham to "My Dear Women," April 1, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

30 The North Carolina Historical Review 

personally to numerous ministers. Although he assured them that he 
would not wish them to exceed "the bounds of propriety," he warned 
that if it were proven "that a political leader can be destroyed in 
North Carolina for the reason that he stood with the moral and 
Church leadership, the consequences to future battles for moral 
issues will be very hurtful indeed." 30 

Ministers reacted in various ways to these appeals. Some declared 
publicly for Simmons and distributed literature. One, with a congre- 
gation of 500 people, promised to deliver their vote. At least one 
Baptist minister addressed a mimeographed letter urging support of 
Simmons as a "Pioneer against the Liquor trade now being arraigned 
by the devil and his hosts." 31 But others denounced the political 
activities of the ministry. One friend of Bailey described the organiza- 
tions of preachers and women as "lying coiled in the grass of preju- 
dice and hypocrisy and striking with their venomous fangs passers 
by." 32 

Although Simmons favored appeals to the moral forces, he relied 
principally upon his record in the Senate to persuade his constituents 
that he should be returned, and it was one of the jobs of Frank 
Hampton, Simmons' secretary, to see that the Senator's efforts were 
properly publicized. Simmons was the leading Democratic expert on 
the tariff and flatly refused to participate personally in his own re- 
election campaign for the legitimate reason that he was needed in 
the continuing tariff battle that had opened with the special session 
of Congress in March, 1929. Simmons' part in the tariff controversy 
may have been a mixed blessing for him. North Carolinians were 
divided on the issue, and Simmons himself was no doctrinaire free 
trader. He was pragmatic rather than dogmatic, preferring a low 
tariff, but quite sensitive to the North Carolina situation. For example, 
mica was mined in seven or eight counties in the western part of 
the state, and the mica interests let it be known that their support in 
the primary depended on a higher tariff on mica, and Simmons was 
apparently able to satisfy them. 33 

Much more complicated was the question of the aluminum tariff. 

30 See, for example, (Simmons) to the Rev. Gerald H. Payne, March 28, 1930, Simmons 

31 J. A. Hartness to Simmons, March 19, 1930, the Rev. J. M. Flemming to Simmons, 
January 28, 1930, Hampton to Fleming, April 18, 1930, Simmons Papers; Conrad to 
the Baptist Ministry of North Carolina, May 23, 1930, Bailey Papers. 

32 The Rev. Sankey L. Blanton to Bailey, May 24, 1930, and Brevard Nixon to Bailey 
Campaign Headquarters, May 9, 1930, Bailey Papers. 

33 G. P. Fortner to Simmons, January 10, 1930, W. W. Bailey to Simmons, February 
14, 1930, David T. Fance to Simmons, April 8, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 31 

The Aluminum Company of America had announced extensive power 
projects in the western part of North Carolina which might result in 
the expenditure of perhaps $125,000,000 in the state in less than 
ten years. Such a building program was attractive to a section tra- 
ditionally poor. Already one project had been started in Macon 
County. It was rumored that a larger project was "held up indefinitely 
because of tariff uncertainties." One of Simmons' political friends in- 
formed Hampton, moreover, that people were getting the word that 
Simmons' action in committee in favor of a low tariff had resulted 
in the loss to the state of some $52,000,000 in power projects. 34 

Simmons gave careful attention to this problem. He claimed that 
he had fought in conference to prevent a more substantial cut in the 
rates. He concluded, however, that aluminum prices were too high, 
that western North Carolina would not be penalized if duties were 
reduced, and so supported lower duties. 35 

An issue upon which Simmons counted to keep at least the eastern 
part of the state loyal to him was that of internal improvements. He 
had been a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce since 
1906 and had fought frequent battles to improve water navigation 
in North Carolina and elsewhere. Some of these efforts came to a 
climax during the primary. He continued to fight for a third lock on 
the Cape Fear River which would make the river navigable to Fay- 
etteville and gained authorization for dredging a 30-foot channel in 
the same river to Wilmington. 36 He also continued to gain appropria- 
tions for the Intracoastal Waterway which envisaged a protected 
channel for small boats and barges from New England to Florida. 

A curious issue having to do with the waterway came to a head 
during the primary campaign. Before the Civil War, a lock and dam 

34 T. H. Vanderferd to Hampton, March 4, 1930, and William D. Harris to Simmons, 
March 15, 1930, Simmons Papers; W. W. Watt to Manning, April 30, 1930, Bailey 
Papers; Norman Cocke to Lee S. Overman, telegram, March 12, 1930, in Lee S. 
Overman Papers, Southern Historical Collection, The University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill, hereinafter cited as Overman Papers. 

35 J. Fred Rippy (ed.), F. M. Simmons, Statesman of the New South (Durham: Duke 
University Press, 1936), 68; Simmons to W. D. Harris, March 17, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

38 See The News and Observer, May 20, 1930; Cape Fear River at and Below Wilming- 
ton, N. C, and Between Wilmington and Navassa, Report on Review of Reports Hereto- 
fore Submitted on Cape Fear River Below Wilmington, N. C, and Between Wilmington 
and Navassa, House Rivers and Harbors Committee, Doc. No. 39, Seventy-first Congress, 
Second Session, cited in Statutes at Large of the United States, XLVI (1931), Pt. 1, 
923; Simmons to J. E. Ashcraft, May 15, 1930, Simmons Papers; Cape Fear River, 
N. C, Report on Preliminary Examination and Survey of Cape Fear River, Above 
Wilmington, N. C. with View to Construction of Lock and Dam About 15 Miles Below 
Fayetteville, House Docs., Seventy-first Congress, Third Session, No. 786 (Serial 9,387) ; 
Report of Chief of Engineers, 193 U, Seventy-fourth Congress, First Session, No. 7 
(Serials 9,946-9,947), Pt. 1, 393; Report of Chief of Engineers, Army, 1935, Seventy- 
fourth Congress, Second Session (Serials 10,043-10,044), Pt. 1, 474-475. 

32 The North Carolina Historical Review 

had been constructed at Great Bridge, Virginia, to keep high tides 
from flowing into Currituck Sound and thus interfering with the 
operation of the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal, a sea level, pri- 
vately-owned canal. Currituck Sound, through which the canal ran, 
was a fresh water sound of about 300 square miles. It was considered 
"the most productive single area in America of black bass," and was 
also a favorite feeding ground for migrating birds. Consequently 
Currituck became a sportsman's paradise representing an estimated 
investment of $5,000,000 in hunting homes and clubs. 37 

In 1912 Congress authorized the purchase of the Albemarle and 
Chesapeake Canal as one link in the recently launched Intracoastal 
Waterway. At the same time, the Army Engineers apparently con- 
cluded that the lock was not essential for navigation, and it was 
abandoned. Within a comparatively short time, the bass became 
fewer, and the grasses upon which the migrating birds fed died. It 
seemed clear that with the abandonment of the lock and dam at Great 
Bridge, the salt water of the Chesapeake was pouring in and chang- 
ing the whole environmental complex of Currituck Sound. 

A vigorous campaign led by local interests but widely supported 
by conservationists developed to restore the lock. Representative 
Lindsay Warren of Washington, North Carolina, brought the ques- 
tion to the attention of Congress, and the Senate Committee on Com- 
merce, of which Simmons was a prominent member, requested an 
investigation by the Board of Engineers. In 1929, three and a half 
years after this request, the board submitted a report containing 
detailed analyses of the problem of the canal but concluding that 
no lock was necessary for navigation and that it was uncertain 
whether a lock would preserve the fish and restore the grasses. 

In February, 1930, Outdoor America carried an article under 
Simmons' signature describing the situation and appealing "to the 
people of America for help to avert" a tragedy. An editor's note on 
this article, reported that Simmons for at least fifteen years had 
"waged a battle, almost single-handed, to ward off" the destruction 
of the preserve. 38 Almost simultaneously with the publication of the 
article, a hearing was held in which Simmons' testimony in favor of 

37 The discussion of the Currituck Sound Problem is taken largely from Hearings 
Before the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives, Seventy-first 
Congress, Second Session, on the Subject of the Construction of a Lock in the Chesapeake 
and Albemarle Canal Section of the Inland Waterway from Norfolk, Virginia, to Beau- 
fort Inlet, North Carolina, January 28, 1930. 

88 The News and Observer, January 29, 1930. It is possible that the basic draft for 
Simmons' article was prepared by Wayne Johnson, a New York attorney. Hampton 
to Wayne Johnson, October 29, 1929, Simmons Papers. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 33 

the bill was again featured, and well before primary day the restora- 
tion of the lock was approved. Such publicity aided Simmons, and 
the opposition was quite legitimately exercised at the nature of the 
publicity. Indeed Bailey supporters insisted that Representative War- 
ren had done more than Simmons to keep the issue alive, and emis- 
saries were dispatched into the Currituck area to inform the voters 
that Warren had initiated the investigation as soon as he had entered 
Congress in 1925. 39 

Actually both Simmons and Warren played important parts in 
securing approval for the restoration. Warren had organized much of 
the campaign, and his committee work had been skillful and effec- 
tive. Nonetheless, Simmons persistently kept at the engineers who 
were turning in unfavorable reports; he saw that hearings were held, 
and that decisions were appealed. He succeeded in relieving the 
locality of having to assume any of the cost of restoration. He argued 
vigorously that the Intracoastal Waterway was a federal project, that 
navigation was a federal responsibility, and that to maintain a haven 
for migratory birds was part of a treaty obligation with Canada. 40 

One national issue with which any sensitive local politician would 
be involved in 1930 was that of chain stores. The increase in the 
number of chain stores in the 1920 , s had created an atmosphere 
comparable to the anti-monopoly campaign of the 1890's. State 
legislatures, traditionally responsive to small town appeal, began to 
approve statutes discriminating against the chains. In 1928 the Sen- 
ate directed the Federal Trade Commission to undertake "an inquiry 
into the methods of chain store marketing and distribution." 41 In 
North Carolina the controversy became lively. The legislature in 
1929 approved a measure which would require a fifty-dollar license 
for every cash retail store operated as a part of a chain in the state. 42 

39 Bailey to Herbert Peele, January 25, 1930, Charles J. Moore to Shuping, May 21 
and 23, 1930, Bailey Papers. 

40 Hearings Before the Committee on Commerce, U. S. Senate, Seventy-first Congress, 
Second Session on H. R. 11781 . . . , Pt. 4, May 19, 1930; Statutes at Large of the 
United States, XLVI (1931), Pt. 1, 922; Lindsay Warren to Richard L. Watson, Jr., 
August 5, 1961, in author's files. 

41 See Chain Stores : Cooperative Grocery Chains . . . and Chain Stores : Growth and 
Development of Chain Stores . . . , Senate Docs. Nos. 12 and 100, Seventy-second Con- 
gress, First Session (Serial 9,501) ; Ray B. Westerfield, "The Rise of the Chain Store," 
Current History, XXXV (December, 1931), 359; "Anti-Chain Store Legislation in 
Congress," Congressional Digest, IX (August-September, 1930), 202; Chain Stores, 
Final Report on Chain-Store Investigation, Letter . . . transmitting in Response to Senate 
Resolution 22A, 70th Congress, Final Report of Federal Trade Commission of Its 
Investigation of Chain-Store Industry, Senate Docs., Seventy-fourth Congress, First 
Session, No. 4 (Serial 9,896). 

42 The Supreme Court upheld this statute in Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. et. al. 
v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, 284 U.S. 575 (1931). 

34 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Public meetings were held, and the issue was debated on the radio. 
In fact, so colorful became the radio broadcasts of W. K. Henderson, 
owner of station KWKH at Shreveport, Louisiana, in opposition to the 
chain stores, that attempts were made to prohibit his programs. 43 

Simmons was deluged with letters urging him to come to the aid 
of Henderson and to support the anti-chain store movement. Even 
though he was reputed to be associated with conservative business 
interests, actually by disposition he favored local merchants in rural 
areas. He endorsed the Federal Trade Commission investigation, and 
lost no opportunity during the primary to let it be known that he 
considered chain stores a menace. Undoubtedly, as one of his or- 
ganizers told him, his anti-chain store activities had some effect 
"where the cross roads store or the filling station is the forum for polit- 
ical discussion." 44 

Bailey, apparently considering Simmons' stand demagogic, was 
less outspoken on the issue. Some of his followers, however, were 
concerned about Bailey's reticence. Robert R. Reynolds, rising Ashe- 
ville politico, warned that "the fight against the chain store is literally 
sweeping this section. Stand with the home people," he urged Bailey. 
"Fight the foreign owned chains" that carry "every dollar they get 
. . . with the exception of the small amount of rent and salaries . . . 
to New York City." 45 

More significant in its lasting implications than the chain-store 
issue in the campaign was the role of organized labor. In 1929 and 
1930 emotions in the state were highly charged on this subject be- 
cause of the violence that had broken out during strikes at the Loray 
Mill in Gastonia and the Marion Manufacturing Company at Marion 
in 1929. At Gastonia, the chief of police and an unarmed striker, 
Mrs. Ella May Wiggins, and at Marion, six strikers were killed. 
The issue was complicated because at Gastonia, Communist organ- 
izers were active; thus not only the rights of labor in the mill, in the 
community, and in the courts, but also the extent of radical partici- 
pation, were involved. 46 

43 New York Times, January 10, April 27, 1930. 

44 The News and Observer, February 23, April 1, 1930; Hampton to John H. Hawley, 
telegram, April 29, 1930, Simmons to T. M. Kessler, April 19, 1930, D. B. Overcash 
to Simmons, April 6, 1930, J. H. Canay to Simmons, undated, Simmons Papers. 

45 Bailey to Robert R. Reynolds, February 17, 1930, Reynolds to Bailey, February 18, 
1930, John T. Wilkins to Shuping, April 23, 1930, J. C. Coston to Bailey, April 12, 1930, 
Bailey Papers. 

48 For accounts of these strikes, see Liston Pope, Millhands and Preachers: A Study 
of Gastonia (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1942) ; Samuel Yellen, 
American Labor Struggles (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1936) ; Broadus 
Mitchell and G. S. Mitchell, The Industrial Revolution in the South (Baltimore, Mary- 
land: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1930); and R. E. Williams, "The Textile Battle and 
Its Present Significance," The News and Observer, May 5, 1929. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 35 

Simmons was faced with the need of taking a stand on the issue 
when Senator Burton K. Wheeler introduced into the Senate on 
April 29 a resolution calling for a congressional investigation of the 
textile industries of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. 
Simmons' southern sensibilities were roused by this resolution, and 
he promptly insisted that, if there were to be any investigation, it 
should be of the textile mills throughout the United States and not 
just in the South. He admitted that southern mills paid lower wages 
but argued that the southern worker enjoyed advantages such as 
lower rents, free water and light, and fuel at cost. Beware of propa- 
ganda that slanders the South, he warned; and at the same time, be 
aware of substandard working conditions in New England mills and 
in the needle trades of New York. Some unions, he alleged, want 
"to control and dominate the factory," and deny "the right of North 
Carolina citizens to work . . . unless they belong to these unions." 47 

Simmons generally had received the support of trade unions in 
the past; his attitude in this debate, however, created doubts in the 
minds of his labor constituents. As soon as he was apprised of this, 
he hastened to re-establish himself. He assured them that he had 
"deep sympathy for our laboring classes," that he believed that the 
"murderer of the poor woman at Gastonia" should be brought to 
justice, and that there should be an investigation by the "impartial 
Federal Trade Commission." 48 

Simmons apparently lost little if any ground by this episode. An 
"act of God" of March 8, 1930, however, put Simmons on the spot 
politically and must have undermined whatever support he had 
built up among labor leaders. Probably when Simmons learned of 
the death of United States Supreme Court Justice Edward Terry 
Sanford, he saw an opportunity to strengthen his political position. 
Sanford was a southerner, and it was assumed that he would be re- 
placed by a southerner. North Carolina had two excellent candidates. 
Simmons himself preferred Chief Justice Stacy of the North Caro- 
lina Supreme Court. Stacy, however, was a Democrat, and Simmons 

"Congressional Record, LXXI, Pt. 1, 630-632; Pt. 2, 1,379-1,384; Pt. 4, 4,221-4,226; 
Senate Committee on Manufacturing, Working Conditions of Textile Industry in North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, Hearings. ..71st Congress, 1st Session, on S. 
Res. b9, Authorizing Committee on Manufactures, or Any Duly Authorized Sub-Com- 
mittee Thereof, to Investigate Immediately Working Conditions of Employees in Textile 
Industry of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, May 8, 9, and 20, 1929 
(Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1929). See also, Puryear, Democratic 
Party Dissension, 22. 

^Simmons to F. Wilson, October 28, 1929, Simmons to Louise Ingersoll, November 
14, 1929, J. L. Hamme to Simmons, December 6, 1929, Simmons to William Green, 
December 11, 1929, Simmons to Hamme, December 20, 1929, Simmons Papers. 

36 The North Carolina Historical Review 

was quite aware that Justice John J. Parker, of the United States 
Circuit Court and a Republican, had a much better chance for pres- 
idential appointment and senate approval. Simmons, therefore, 
backed both of these men for the nomination, and when Hoover 
chose Parker, Simmons considered himself committed to his sup- 
port. 49 

Although at first senatorial approval of the appointment seemed 
assured, opposition quickly developed. Some Democrats, even south- 
erners, opposed Parker because he was a Republican; liberal sen- 
ators, sensitive about the complexion of the Supreme Court, con- 
sidered Parker too conservative and not sufficiently distinguished; 
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
was suspicious of his position on the racial question; and the labor 
leadership insisted that one of his decisions on the circuit court 
showed that he sympathized with the yellow-dog contract. The 
question was a complex one; but, whatever the validity of the argu- 
ments raised, the coalition was sufficiently strong to defeat Parker's 
confirmation on May 7, one month before the primary. Simmons 
consistently supported Parker and voted for his confirmation. He 
undoubtedly would have lost many votes had he turned against 
Parker, but at the same time his vote meant that union members 
who considered the yellow-dog contract a symbol of enslavement 
would no longer give him their support. 50 

Although it had its weak points, Simmons' record on the national 
political scene by 1930 was perhaps more impressive than that of any 
North Carolinian who had preceded him in the Senate. Simmons' 
regular return to Washington in four previous elections had depended 
not only upon his record, but also upon his organization. Now the 
organization no longer could be relied upon, and Simmons and 
Hampton were too professional to think that the record alone would 
suffice. Voters must have the record thrust upon them; they must be 
registered and shepherded to the polls; and their votes must be 
counted. Simmons' concern about such practical matters led to an 
attempt on the part of his organization to persuade the state board 
of elections to see to it that the various Democratic election officers 
(registrars, poll holders, and markers) would be divided equally be- 

49 Simmons to A. W. McLean, March 14, 1930, and Simmons to C. A. Hines, March 14, 
1930, Simmons Papers. For a detailed discussion of this question, see Richard L. Wat- 
son, Jr., "The Defeat of Judge Parker: A Study of Pressure Groups in Politics," The 
Mississippi Valley Historical Review, L (September, 1963), 213-233. 

50 Senate Judiciary Committee, Confirmation of John J. Parker to Be Associate Justice 
of Supreme Court, Hearing Before Subcommittee, 71st Congress, 2d Session, Apr. 5, 
1930 (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1930), passim. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 37 

tween Bailey and Simmons followers. The state board, however, when 
it met on March 29, 1930, announced that the normal practice of 
following the advice of county chairmen would be continued. Since 
most county chairmen now favored Bailey, it was generally con- 
ceded that Bailey had won an important round by gaining control 
of the party election machinery in most localities. 51 

There was in fact something wrong with the Simmons organiza- 
tion. Hampton, informed that the campaign "was a mess" and going 
"by default," was discouraged. Devoted to the old senator, he could 
not bear the thought of his defeat. He worked day and night, writing 
letters, telephoning, drafting broadsides, raising money. Not a tem- 
perate man, he occasionally blew up. "Ungrateful skunks . . . and 
sons of bitches who have eaten bread from the Senators table," he 
wrote on one occasion, "are fighting him all over the State and trying 
to bring a great career to a close in humiliation and defeat and break 
his heart and throw him out in his old age." Vigor and inspiration 
were needed; and, since Simmons would not give it, the next best 
thing was for Hampton to provide it. He had intervened personally 
in the presidential election of 1928, and his intervention had ap- 
parently contributed to the success of the anti-Smith forces. Now late 
in May, 1930, he established himself at the Hotel Sir Walter in Raleigh 
and took over Simmons' organization. 52 

Sensing that there was now a danger of losing even the anti-Smith 
voters, Hampton gave a go-ahead signal to Frank McNinch, brilliant 
lawyer, eloquent speaker, and chairman in 1928 of the anti-Smith 
Democratic organization in North Carolina. McNinch was delighted 
to turn his oratorical guns against "Raskob and the liquor crowd." 
Hampton also made every effort, as had been his custom, to persuade 
his friends in state office to get, in a "proper way of course," a good 
supply of absentee certificates and ballots. One of his closest friends, 
however, reminded him of the new absentee ballot law that required 
each voter to request his own ballot. At this Hampton was irritated. 
Convinced that the Bailey crowd would get as many absentee ballots 
as they wanted, he informed Frank Grist, commissioner of labor and 
printing, that he knew Grist would not be able to get ballots through 

111 The News and Observer, March 29-31, 1930; Bailey to Morrison, April 1, 1930, 
Bailey Papers; (H. G. Branston) to Hines, March 31, 1930, and Opie Edwards to Hamp- 
ton, April 1, 1930, Simmons Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 35. 

62 Hampton to Lee Hampton, April 29, 1930, Hampton to Simmons, telegram, May 25, 
1930, and McNinch to Simmons, May 27, 1930, Simmons Papers. See also, Puryear, 
Democratic Party Dissension, 32-34. 

38 The North Carolina Historical Review 

regular channels but that he had expected Grist to get them anyway. 53 
Frustrated in his efforts to get the absentee ballots himself, Hamp- 
ton made a special secretary in Simmons' office responsible for the 
numerous North Carolinians in Washington. The secretary interviewed 
each North Carolinian personally, obtained applications for their bal- 
lots, and followed them up to be sure the applications were received. 
In some instances, at least, requests for absentee ballots directed to 
county boards of election were charged to Simmons' personal ac- 
count. 54 

Another problem for the professional organizer was the restriction 
upon spending money in the campaign. North Carolina laws required 
regular reporting of the amounts spent "to aid in the campaign or elec- 
tion of any candidate for any office in a primary or general election." 
Furthermore it was illegal for a senatorial candidate to "spend or 
allow others to spend" more than his annual salary as a senator. 55 
In practice, these laws were widely ignored, and many expenditures 
were made locally which were not reported. Such a relaxed interpre- 
tation of the law seems to have been accepted, but there was always 
danger of an outside investigation. 56 In 1930, for example, a special 
committee of the United States Senate, of which Gerald P. Nye 
was chairman, was appointed to investigate senatorial campaigns. 57 

The organization of neither Simmons nor Bailey lived within either 
the letter or spirit of the law. Some efforts were apparently made to 
keep the expenditures of central headquarters within the $10,000 
limits provided for a senator, but even the most conscientious efforts 
in a tough campaign would probably have failed. One or more cam- 
paign headquarters had to be maintained. Literature had to be 
printed and mailed. These functions were more or less open and 
aboveboard. Somewhat different was the problem of the "worker." 
In the Simmons camp, for example, the professionals did not have 

63 McNinch to Simmons, May 27, 1930, McNinch to Hampton, June 3, 1930, Hampton 
to LeRoy Martin, May 5, 1930, Hampton to Frank D. Grist, May 12, 1930, Grist to 
Hampton, May 16, 1930, Hampton to Grist, May 17, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

54 F. Hunter Creech to J. A. Hartness, June 4, 1930, and Sadie Larkins McCormick 
to J. A. Taylor, June 5, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

55 He might, in addition, pay his personal travel and subsistence expenses while cam- 
paigning. The North Carolina Code of 1931 ... (Charlottesville, Virginia: The Michie 
Company, 1931), c. 82, s. 4185; Public Laws, 1913, c. 164. 

56 See, for example, Cameron Morrison's testimony in Senatorial Campaign Expendi- 
tures, 1930, Hearings, 71st Congress, 2nd Session, Pursuant to S. Res. 215, Authorizing 
Appointment of Special Committee to Make Investigation into Campaign Expenditures 
of Candidates for Senate: North Carolina, Oct. 13 and U, 1930 (Washington, D. C: 
Government Printing Office, 1930), 9, hereinafter cited as Senatorial Campaign Expen- 

67 Senate Resolution 215, approved April 10, 1930, Congressional Record, LXXII, Pt. 
8, 6,841. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 39 

confidence in the "moral forces" getting to the polls unless the work- 
ers got them there. And workers were professionals who expected 
payment for their services. John Langston reported, for example, that 
"every party worker that has been effective in the past" would work 
for Bailey if they were not paid. Bart Gatling, Simmons' Raleigh man- 
ager, warned Hampton early in May that "the other side has already 
made offers to my men, and I am in danger of losing them." He re- 
quested $600. 58 

Bailey was also bombarded with requests to pay workers and meet 
other expenses of getting voters to the polls. Neither his organization 
nor Simmons' tried to keep check on how much was spent locally. 
Some of these expenditures were large. Cameron Morrison, for ex- 
ample, gave $2,000 to Bailey's campaign which was reported. He gave 
in addition $1,000 to a young man who "loved Mr. Bailey," $500 each 
to Bailey's managers in Richmond and Scotland counties, and $3,000 
to Bailey's manager in Mecklenburg County. James Pou, Bailey's 
father-in-law, contributed $750 which was reported. But he also paid 
two field workers, bought radio advertising, and increased his con- 
tributions to charity. His unreported contributions amounted to about 
$1,500. Moreover, it appears that bills unpaid on primary day were 
not included within the official $10,000 amount; Shuping paid per- 
sonally between $5,000 and $6,000 worth of these bills. None of this 
amount was reported. 59 

Another issue which produced charges and countercharges was 
that involving the Negro. Simmons was still known as the "chieftain 
of white supremacy," a title which was bestowed upon him out of 
the "overflowing love and appreciation of the white people of the 
State for his fearless and magnificent leadership in the great White 
Supremacy Revolution." 60 Simmons had gained votes in the past 
because of this reputation. His supporters hoped to profit from it 

The Negro question was raised as a campaign issue early in April, 
1930, when the Reidsville Review devoted its pages on April 2, 1930, 
to an article in support of Simmons. It praised Simmons especially 
for his white supremacy activities and contrasted them with Bailey's 
position. Bailey, it asserted, had at the turn of the century opposed 
separate railway cars for the white and colored races, had endorsed 
a proposal to reduce North Carolina's representation if Negro suffrage 

68 Langston to Simmons, April 2 and 23, 1930, and Bart Gatling to Hampton, May 7, 
1930, Simmons Papers. 

59 Pou and Shuping testimony in Senatorial Campaign Expenditures, 31-38, 22. 

60 Frank Hampton, For the Senate (campaign pamphlet), 7, Simmons Papers. 

40 The North Carolina Historical Review 

were restricted, and had sneered at the white supremacy issue. Indeed 
the Review accused Bailey of recommending independence in party, 
and of voting for McKinley in 1896. 61 

The Review article was tightly packed and rather difficult reading. 
Consequently, Frank Hampton and his brother Parks prepared a 
circular containing a more popular version of the same story. They 
were aided by the fact that several prominent Negroes such as James 
Shepard, president of North Carolina College, and a Negro news- 
paper, the Carolina Times of Durham, favored Bailey. The Hamptons 
took an attack on Simmons, made by the Times, and printed it beside 
allegations that Bailey opposed segregation and disfranchisement. 
"The idea of anyone opposing separate cars for the white and blacks 
will work wonders in the western counties," wrote Parks Hampton. 
And Frank urged that at least 50,000 copies of the circular should be 
printed with the thought that they be widely distributed particularly 
where "the prohibition issue is not popular." 62 

The explosive nature of the issue made a counterattack necessary. 
Bailey insisted that there was "not a word of truth in the circular." 
He denied that he had sneered at white supremacy, insisting that his 
first political speech had been in support of the suffrage amendment. 
He explained his advocacy of political independence by saying that 
as editor of the Biblical Recorder, a religious paper, he "had to pursue 
an independent course." 63 Bailey's denials were combined with at- 
tacks on Simmons. One piece of Bailey literature was in the form 
of a letter to Simmons written by a voter who had voted for Hoover 
because of Simmons' leadership. "The first thing that Hoover did was 
to give a tea in the White House to a Negro wife of the Negro Con- 
gressman De Priest," said the repentant voter. "My eyes were opened 
and I was ashamed. I realized that I had voted against all the instincts 
of my Southern blood. . . ." M 

The racial issue became more complicated when it was learned 
late in May that 375 Negroes had registered in Raleigh to vote in 
the Democratic primary. Reaction to this news came swiftly. The 

61 Biblical Recorder (Raleigh), November 23, 30, December 7, 21, 1898, and April 
25, 1900, quoted in Reidsville Review, April 2, 1930. 

62 James Shepard to Bailey, January 4, 1930, Bailey Papers; Parks Hampton to Frank 
Hampton, telegrams, April 17, May 1, 1930, Frank Hampton to Parks Hampton, April 
28, May 1, 5, 1930, Simmons Papers. The circular is attached to letter, J. K. Norfleet 
to Shuping, May 21, 1930, Bailey Papers. 

63 Mary Stewart to Editor, Charlotte Observer, May 24, 1930; Bailey to John H. 
Cathey, May 29, 1930, Bailey Papers. See also, the draft of a campaign circular, The 
Charges Against Mr. Bailey, Bailey Papers. 

64 Editorial, Pender Chronicle (Burgaw), May 15, 1930, reprinted as campaign broad- 
side, Simmons Papers. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 41 

Raleigh News and Observer called it "a dagger at the heart," saying 
that the Negroes should not have been allowed to register as Demo- 
crats since all Negroes were Republicans. Educated Negroes should 
be protected in their right to register and vote Republican, edi- 
torialized The News and Observer. "They do not desire to be guilty of 
the fraud of posing as Democrats." 65 Simmons, thinking that the local 
"Jones faction" had registered the Negroes in order to gain votes for 
Bailey, announced publicly that he was "shocked and amazed" and 
urged the exposure of "the instigators of this indefensible scheme." 66 

The Bailey organization was obviously alarmed. As one Pamlico 
County man put it, "But for God's sake, yours and mine, and all North 
Carolina, don't let the 'niggers' in Raleigh vote in a Democratic pri- 
mary." "The Simmons forces are using that strong against Bailey and 
it is having effect. . . ." Bailey himself denied that his organization 
"had anything to do with the registration," and accused the Simmons 
organization of blackening his character. 67 

On May 31, Bart Gatling, Simmons' Raleigh manager, challenged 
every Negro registered as a Democrat. Although he initially indicated 
that he would challenge them on the sole grounds that they were 
Negroes, the actual complaint put party affiliation or educational 
qualifications as the basis for the challenge. Of the 472 Negroes chal- 
lenged, 149 appeared to answer the challenge. With few exceptions 
all claimed to be Democrats of long standing; most of them were given 
literacy tests; and all except three were permitted to remain on the 
Democratic rolls. 68 

It is difficult to steer a straight course through the morass of 
charges and countercharges in the controversy over Negro voting. 
Actually for a good many years Negroes had been registered to vote 
in Raleigh elections, and the various political factions had bargained 
for their votes. There may not have been anything underhanded in 
the growing Negro registration in the Democratic party; it may have 
been that the Negroes themselves had made up their minds how they 

65 The News and Observer, May 27, 1930. The Charlotte Observer, June 1, 1930, stated 
that it was "a practice common with the Raleigh politicians of using the Negro vote 
when it might be advantageous to do so." There were, it appeared, more than 2,000 
Negro names on the old books, of which 500 were transferred to the new. 

66 Simmons to Mrs. L. A. Mahler, May 28, 1930, Simmons Papers; The News and 
Observer, May 29, 1930. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 41. 

67 Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 41 ; S. M. Carupen to Shuping, May 30, 1930, 
Bailey Papers; The News and Observer, May 30, 1930. See also, A. E. Jones to Shuping, 
May 30, 1930, Bailey Papers. 

68 The News and Observer, May 29, 1930. Although Simmons wanted to make it appear 
that all Negroes would support Bailey, there was some evidence that Simmons, too, had 
Negro supporters. B. B. Lipscomb to Simmons, May 28, 1930, Simmons Papers; The 
News and Observer, May 30, June 4-6, 1930. 

42 The North Carolina Historical Review 

would register. Testimony at the hearings gave some indication that 
the Negroes were moving into the Democratic party in North Carolina 
because they believed that the local Republican leadership wished 
to make the party "lily white." 69 

The Negro issue was just one of the several devices by which the 
Simmons forces attempted to win supporters in the closing days of 
the campaign. There was some hope, for example, that former Gov- 
ernor Angus McLean might lead a grand rally on election eve. 
But McLean refused to participate, and Simmons made his own final 
appeal in a written statement. He asserted that he was making his 
case for re-election upon his record of thirty years in the Senate. 
He accused his enemies of ignoring his record and attacking only his 
failure to support Al Smith in 1928. They "ignore also the fact," he 
went on, that "I have voted for . . . every Democratic nominee- 
national, state, district, county and local— with one exception. . . ." 
"I have never fought a battle," he concluded, "against the welfare 
and glory of my country, my State, and my party." 70 

By the first of June, Bailey had returned to Raleigh to work at his 
headquarters. Even then he had not decided to make a campaign 
address. Reports from the troops in the field had indicated a Simmons 
gain in recent weeks; and so Bailey decided to deliver one climactic, 
final broadcast at the Raleigh auditorium. This speech was perhaps 
the clearest statement of the "issues" of Bailey's campaign. He ex- 
plained that he had intentionally not developed any issues because 
he wanted to stand not on his own platform but on that of the 
Democratic party. He denied that Raskob, or any wet organization, 
had contributed to his campaign and asserted that he would "live and 
die in opposition to . . . the liquor traffic." He also denied that he or 
his associates had anything to do with the registration of Negroes. 
He assured his listeners that he had consistently opposed increasing 
the tax burdens upon the farmers and people generally. He was 
given a great ovation as he concluded: "From the mountains to the 
sea, I confidently predict that the Democracy of North Carolina will 
go to the polls next Saturday, determined ... to repair the damage 
done in 1928, and to march to a great victory in 1930, and a greater 
still in 1932." 71 

69 The News and Observer, May 28, June 1, 4-7, 1930. 

70 W. G. Holman to Simmons, May 17, 1930, Holman to McLean, May 17, 1930, McLean 
to Holman, May 26, 1930, C. H. England to McLean, May 26, 1930, McLean to Simmons, 
May 27, 1930, England to McLean, May 27, 1930, McLean to Simmons, June 2, 1930, 
Simmons Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 43; The News and 
Observer, June 6, 1930. 

71 Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 43 ; The News and Observer, June 6, 1930. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 43 

Primary day, June 7, 1930, brought cloudy or stormy weather to 
most communities. Each side, in fact, claimed that it lost votes be- 
cause of the rain. 72 Nevertheless, more than 325,000 voters turned 
out, some 90,000 more than ever before in a North Carolina primary. 
Bailey received 198,867 votes, almost 70,000 more than Simmons. He 
carried all but 16 of the 100 counties. Simmons carried seven counties 
in the East— this was his home stronghold which he had strengthened 
by support of the waterways. He carried only Mecklenburg and 
Forsyth counties in the heavily populated Piedmont where the anti- 
Smith Democrats had won overwhelmingly in 1928. He carried no 
county west of Iredell. 73 

The defeat plunged Simmons' friends into gloom. McAdoo found 
it difficult to comprehend and assured Simmons that he was worthy 
of being in the White House. Others were more emotional. "If Jesus 
of Nazareth had been crowned King of the Jews and died a natural 
death while enjoying imperial power, there would be few today . . . 
who had ever heard his name," wrote a ministerial friend. "Had 
Thomas Cranmer not been burned at the stake, his name would not 
appear on the pages of history. Had Woodrow Wilson not suffered 
defeat in the last days of his life, the honor of his memory would be 
less." 74 Superficially at least, ranks were closed after the primary in 
preparation for the election in the fall. In fact, there was much bitter- 
ness beneath the surface. From Bailey supporters came accusations 
that Republicans had registered as Democrats in order to support 
Simmons in the primary. Now that he was defeated in the primary, 
the accusation went on, Simmons would run as an independent in 
order to attract the coalition that had defeated Smith in 1928. At 
least some of the Simmons followers thought that the election had 
been stolen from them. They complained of the control of the elec- 

72 J. R. Jones to Bailey, June 10, 1930, Bailey Papers; J. W. Hollowell to Simmons, 
June 9, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

73 The counties carried by Simmons were Jones, Craven, Lenoir, Onslow, Pender (by 
one vote), New Hanover, and Hyde in the east; Wilson, Robeson, Caswell, Hertford, 
Lee, Richmond, Mecklenburg, Forsyth, and Iredell in the rest of the state. The largest 
number of votes polled in a North Carolina election prior to 1930 was in the election 
of 1928. The News and Observer, June 18, 1930. See also, Charlotte Observer, June 9, 

74 McAdoo to Daniel Roper, June 10, 1930, and McAdoo to Simmons, June 16, 1930, 
William G. McAdoo Papers, Division of Manuscripts, Library of Congress; Horace M. 
Dubose, Jr., to Simmons, June 9, 1930, Langston to Simmons, telegram, June 9, 1930, 
Simmons to Langston, telegram, June 10, 1930, Simmons Papers; Charlotte Observer, 
June 10, 1930. 

44 The North Carolina Historical Review 

tion by Bailey election officials, of the purchase of voters, and of 
fraudulent voting by absentee ballots. 75 

Simmons became convinced that New York money had been used 
to rob him of the election. 76 Thus he was delighted when Senator 
Nye's Senatorial Campaign Committee decided to investigate the 
various rumors of irregularities. A very brief two-day hearing was 
held. Cameron Morrison, C. L. Shuping, and James Pou, among 
others, testified. They were on the defensive, for unquestionably they 
had spent more money than was permitted by law. Nonetheless, they 
appeared to be quite willing to talk about it rather apologetically. 
Editor Josephus Daniels, although he had favored Simmons, con- 
cluded that the hearing was a "Godsend" in that "not a scintilla of 
evidence was elicited to prove that Bailey got any outside money" of 
significance. At the same time, Daniels pointed out that it had "un- 
covered indefensible practices of money spent for a candidate through 
agencies other than the campaign committees and not reported." 77 

Money was not, therefore, the principal factor defeating Simmons. 
The principal factor was undoubtedly the obvious one: Simmons' 
failure to support Smith in 1928. As Simmons' colleague, Senator Lee 
S. Overman, put it, "The people of North Carolina do not like ir- 
regularity in politics and especially from a man who had led them all 
these years insisting upon regularity." 78 

By the time the primary campaign had begun, few of the local 
professional politicians were willing to support Simmons. This situa- 
tion was novel. Simmons had never campaigned much for himself. 
He had relied on local politicians. In fact, Bailey claimed that Sim- 
mons' reputation as a campaign fighter was something of a myth, 
pointing out that he had made only two political speeches in the state 
between 1916 and 1928. Then in 1928, wrote a Bailey man, "he made 
two speeches in advocacy of the election of a mossy-back, blue- 

75 Bruce Craven to Bailey, June 9, 1930, W. A. Hunt to Bailey, June 9, 1930, A. A. 
Bunn to Bailey, June 10, 1930, Bailey Papers; Mary Jones to (Simmons), June 12, 1930, 
W. Henry Liles to Hines, July 10, 1930, Simmons Papers. In Catawba County, where 
fewer than 5,000 votes were cast, for instance, there was an estimate of 1,500 absentee 
votes. T. J. Ray to Simmons, August 18, 1930, C. G. Whitney to Simmons, August 8, 
1930, G. W. Murray to Simmons, August 20, 1930, Whitney to Simmons, August 22, 
1930, Simmons Papers. 

78 Memo to the Press, June 12, 1930, Simmons to Hampton, August 21, 1930, Ward 
to Hampton, September 4, 1930, Hampton to Ward, September 11, 1930, Hampton to 
Simmons, September 15, 1930, Hampton to (Simmons, September, 1930), Simmons 
Papers; Overman to Bailey, June 13, 1930, Bailey Papers. 

77 The News and Observer, October 14, 1930, and Josephus Daniels to Albert S. 
Burleson, October 11, 1930, Josephus Daniels Papers, Division of Manuscripts, Library 
of Congress; Charlotte Observer, October 14-15, 1930. 

78 Overman to (Craige) Burton, June 14, 1930, Overman Papers; Morning Herald, 
June 10, 1930. 

Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 45 

bellied, monopoly - worshipping, DePriest - entertaining Republi- 
can. ... 

Even Simmons' ability as an organizer was being questioned. He 
had become increasingly accustomed to leaving the day-to-day busi- 
ness to A. D. Watts, Frank Hampton, and a host of other friends who 
had worked with him in the nineties and following decades. By 1930 
some of them were dead, many were old, and a significant number 
of them had revolted over Simmons' stand in 1928. 80 Since the Senator 
had not campaigned actively in the state for some years, young 
Democrats did not know him. Most young lawyers, the aspiring 
politicians, opposed him. There was rebellion against the idea of 
the "Simmons machine." Thus the local machinery became pre- 
dominantly controlled by the followers of Bailey. 

Under the circumstances, Simmons' only hope was to rally those 
who had been inspired by his stand in the 1928 election and others, 
such as organized labor and the corporations, who were not tradi- 
tionally a part of the political organization. None of these groups 
voted in the way hoped for by the Simmons organization. Indeed, 
Hampton was infuriated at the "so called moral element" which he 
said had deserted Simmons when he was in distress, leaving him 
"naked to his enemies." 81 Yet "the moral element" was divided; 
Bailey, a Baptist, certainly was not a wet, and he was quite successful 
in rallying those women who remembered that when Simmons was 
opposing woman suffrage Bailey was taking the lead in favoring it. 

Even so the prohibition issue would probably have had a more 
decisive effect had not the depression conveniently materialized to 
nullify the emotional issues. It was widely accepted that Hoover was 
responsible for the depression, and by 1930 all North Carolina was 
feeling its effect. In 1928 Simmons had indirectly helped Hoover, 
and he had not seriously attacked him since. The conclusion was 
obvious that because of his association, Simmons could be judged 
guilty of the depression. Simmons' supporters might point to his con- 
sistent record of aid to farmers, internal improvements, veterans' 
benefits, and other favors to constituents. In good times, this record 
might have been convincing; in depression times, even a constructive 
record of one who had bolted the party was easily forgotten. 

79 Bailey to Gerald W. Johnson, January 16, 1930, Bailey to W. 0. Saunders, March 
19, 1930, D. M. Stringfield to Manning, February 17, 1930, Nixon to Bailey, April 23, 
1930, Bailey Papers. 

80 For a detailed analysis of this situation, see Bailey to Walter Montgomery, June 
12, 1943, Bailey Papers. 

81 Hampton to McNinch, November 20, 1930, Simmons Papers. 

46 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Simmons expected to receive support from labor. His decision to 
support Judge Parker's confirmation, however, had killed that hope. 
At the other extreme were the corporations whose resources appar- 
ently had been at the service of the Simmons organization in the past. 
Some expected the corporations to come to his help in 1930, but there 
is no evidence that they did. Perhaps they too were cooled by 
Simmons' actions in the Senate. Only recently he had stood against 
private interests' taking over Muscle Shoals; here he was no doubt 
judged guilty of association again— this time with that alleged radical, 
George Norris. Moreover, his stand on the tariff did not help him with 
business in general, in view of the fact that he had resisted all efforts 
of the Duke Power Company and others to persuade him to support 
a higher tariff on aluminum. 82 

There were no true issues that clearly separated the contestants 
in 1930. The aim was to arouse the voter, get him to the polls, and 
see that he voted right. Violence was frowned upon, but the practices 
followed by representatives of both sides were questionable to say 
the least. Race, religion, any subject that might influence the vote 
were tossed into the ring. People were marched to the polls, absentee 
ballots manipulated. 

Simmons was defeated by a young man, more vigorous, more elo- 
quent, and perhaps more powerful intellectually. The old Senator, 
who spent most of the ten years remaining to him on his porch at New 
Bern, would express himself as sympathetic to the New Deal at 
a time when Senator Bailey was becoming a symbol of the conserva- 
tive southern Democrat. It is interesting to speculate whether, had he 
been re-elected, Simmons would have adapted to the changing pol- 
icies of Franklin Roosevelt as he had supported the changing policies 
of the earlier Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. 

82 Victory Boyden to Simmons, June 9, 1930, Simmons Papers; The News and Observer, 
June 9-10, 1930; Morning Herald, June 10, 1930. 



By Patrick Sowle * 

In Colonial North Carolina the only group to question the ethics 
of slaveholding was the Society of Friends. And even they were late 
beginning. Although as early in 1740 they discussed methods of "using 
negroes well/' they did little to oppose the institution. 1 In 1754 a 
touring Quaker from New England regretted that among his southern 
brethren "Negro-purchasing comes more and more in use." 2 In the 
1760's, however, serious attention was given to slaveholding, and in 
1768 the Western Quarterly, a subdivision of the North Carolina 
Yearly Meeting, advised its members "not to buy or sell in any case 
that can be reasonably avoided." 3 Four years later the Western 
Quarterly advanced its position by ruling that a Friend should not 
purchase a Negro except from a fellow-Quaker or to prevent the 
separation of mates or of parent and child. Under no circumstances 
could a Friend sell a slave to a professional trader. 4 The members of 
the Western Quarterly continued to advocate their cause, and in 1775 
they persuaded the Yearly Meeting to rule that "Friends . . . shall 
neither buy or sell a negro without the consent of the monthly meet- 
ing to which they belong." Manumission was also recommended. 5 
Committees were appointed to aid members in emancipating slaves; 
the committee members later reported that they "found a great will- 
ingness, even beyond [our] . . . expectation to promote the work; 
and a considerable number of slaves [has] . . . been liberated. . . ." 6 

* Dr. Sowle is Associate Professor of History at Murray State College, Murray, 

X A Narrative of the Proceedings of the North Carolina Yearly Meeting on the Sub- 
ject of Slavery (Greensboro: Swaim and Sherwood, 1848), 6, hereinafter cited as 

2 Samuel Frothergill, Memoirs of the Life and Gospel Labours of Samuel Frothergill 
(Liverpool, England: D. Marples, 1843), 283, quoted by Rufus M. Jones, The Quakers 
in the American Colonies (London, England: Macmillan and Co., 1911), 322. 

3 Narrative, 7. 

4 Narrative, 7. 

5 Narrative, 10. 

6 Narrative, 11. 

48 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Although the total number of emancipated slaves is not known, it 
appears that many of the Quakers disposed of their Negroes, although 
some members refused to co-operate. 7 

Legislators in North Carolina feared the Quakers' schemes of 
emancipation, and in 1777 the General Assembly provided that a 
slave could not be liberated "except for meritorious services to be 
adjudged of and allowed by the county court. . . ." 8 In consequence 
of this act about 40 of the freed slaves were imprisoned. A few were 
resold into slavery. The Yearly Meeting and the local monthly meet- 
ings labored to free their former bondsmen. The Friends repeatedly 
petitioned the legislature for repeal of the statute, but the lawmakers 
remained unmoved for it "would be of dangerous consequence to the 
Community at large to tolerate the owners of slaves to set them 
free/' 9 

After the passage of the 1777 statute prohibiting manumission 
except for meritorious service the Quakers bypassed the law by 
allowing their slaves to live as free Negroes. They were allowed to 
live and provide for themselves as they wished. Again the North 
Carolina legislature feared such plans, and in 1794 it decided that 
slaves could not "hire their time." 10 The only recourse left now was 
to send the slaves north, especially to Pennsylvania. This plan seems 
to have been put into operation to a limited extent, but, the number 
of relocated Negroes is not known. 11 

In order to eradicate slavery completely and to evade the statutory 
impediments, the Yearly Meeting in 1808 devised the "Trustee Plan 
of Slaveholding." This plan was established with the hope that some- 
day the laws of North Carolina would be relaxed and that the Negroes 
would be able to enjoy freedom. 12 Trustees were appointed by the 
Yearly Meeting to hold consignments of slaves in trust from Quaker 
masters. The trustees worked under the supervision of the Yearly 
Meeting which held legal title to the Negroes. Nearly all the Quaker 

7 Narrative, 13. 

8 John Haywood (ed.), A Manual of the Laws of North-Carolina . . . (Raleigh: J. 
Gales [Fourth edition], 1819), s. xxviii, hereinafter cited as Haywood, Manual 

9 See "Report of the Committee . . . Relative to the Slaves Liberated by the Quakers," 
January 27, 1779, Legislative Papers of North Carolina, Archives, State Department of 
Archives and History, Raleigh, hereinafter cited as Legislative Papers; Walter Clark 
(ed.), The State Records of North Carolina (Winston, Goldsboro, and Raleigh: State of 
North Carolina, 16 volumes and 4-volume index [compiled by Stephen B. Weeks for both 
Colonial Records and State Records], 1895-1914), XIX, 31; XXI, 933; XXIV, 221, 964. 

10 Haywood, Manual, s. lx. 

11 Narrative, 23. 

12 Nathan Mendenhall to the Meeting for Sufferings of Philadelphia, November 4, 
1825, Letter Book of the Meeting for Sufferings of the North Carolina Yearly Meeting, 
Guilford College Library, Guilford College, hereinafter cited as Letter Book of 

North Carolina Manumission Society 49 

masters participated. As many as 800 slaves were included in the 
plan. Ironically, the North Carolina Yearly Meeting thus became 
one of the greatest slaveholders in the South. Legally the Negroes 
were still in bondage, but they enjoyed many of the advantages of 
freedom. Some purchased land in the name of the trustees and built 
up modest homesteads. 13 

The Friends, however, disliked this system. They realized that it 
was an evasion of duly constituted law. In addition the trustee slaves 
in their unsupervised lives sometimes ran afoul of the law. Also many 
elderly slaves had to be supported by the Yearly Meeting, and the 
females constantly proved their worth by presenting the trustees 
with new charges. In view of these problems the Yearly Meeting re- 
peatedly petitioned the North Carolina legislature for modification of 
the slave code. 14 

As slavery became more and more a burden to the Yearly Meeting 
and as the institution came into increasing use among their non- 
Quaker neighbors in the North Carolina Piedmont, the Friends sought 
new measures by which to act against slavery. By early 1816 Charles 
Osborne, a Quaker minister from Tennessee, found it possible to form 
small manumission societies at Center, Caraway, Deep River, and 
New Garden in Guilford County, the center of Quaker strength. 
"I . . . went ... to Deep River settlement," he recalled later in life, 

Here I was at their monthly meeting, and also had a meeting with a 
number of them on the manumission business. From here, I went to Spring- 
field and there, had a large public meeting ; thence to Center, the next day, 
and had another at the usual hour; and finding here a society of manu- 
missionists, who had organized in consequence of some papers they had 
received from us in Tennessee. I had a meeting with them in the afternoon. 
All these meetings were to satisfaction. 15 

Their mutual interest led these four local societies to convene in a 
joint meeting. On July 19, 1816, 23 delegates representing approxi- 
mately 150 members assembled and discussed plans for possible 

13 See inventory, c. 1826, signed by George Swain and Henry Bolinger, agents for 
Levinia Benbow, wife of a slave owned by a non-Quaker. Listed in the inventory were 
38 acres of land, one horse, seven cows, farm implements, and household furnishings. 
North Carolina Manumission Society Papers, Southern Historical Collection, University 
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, hereinafter cited as Manumission Society Papers. 

"Minute Book of the North Carolina Yearly Meeting, 1794-1837, passim, Guilford 
College Library, Guilford College, hereinafter cited as Minutes of Yearly Meeting. 

15 Charles Osborn, Journal of That Faithful Servant of Christ, Charles Osborn, Con- 
taining an Account of Many of His Travels and Labours in the Work of the Ministry 
and His Trials and Exercises in the Service of the Lord, and in the Defense of the 
Truth, As it is in Jesus (Cincinnati, Ohio: A. Pugh, 1854), 185. 

50 The North Carolina Historical Review 

gradual emancipation. Wishing to continue future meetings, they 
elected officers and appointed a committee to frame a constitution. 16 
In December a constitution was ratified at another convention. The 
new organization was christened the North Carolina Manumission 
Society. Although Quakers dominated the society, membership was 
open to all, and occasionally slaveholders and other interested citi- 
zens attended. 17 

The society's antislavery attitude was epitomized in the preamble 
to the constitution. It declared that all men possessed certain rights. 
The Creator expected men to treat each other "as we would be done 
by." Though the Negro was different in color, he was entitled to 
freedom; it was the obligation of every citizen to remove the dishonor 
of slavery from a Christian nation. 18 The society, however, disavowed 
political action. A proposal to expel members of the society who 
voted for slaveholding candidates for the legislature was promptly 
rejected. 19 

From the initial cluster of four branches the society grew slowly. 
In December of 1816 there were fewer than 25 delegates at the con- 
vention or semiannual "General Association" as it was officially 
termed. When the first convention of 1817 convened in July a new 
branch, Reedy Fork, had been formed, and 42 delegates were present. 
By the next fall the Friends Meeting at Springfield had formed a 
branch. From the end of 1817 to early 1820 the number of branches 
remained constant as did attendance at the General Association ses- 
sions, while individual membership grew steadily. In 1817 about 200 
members could be claimed, New Garden and Center being the largest 
branches, each with about 70 members. By the autumn of the same 
year the total rose to 256. The roll books increased until April, 1819, 
when 281 members were listed. 20 

The society early undertook to proselytize the people of the North 
Carolina Piedmont. In December, 1816, a committee was appointed 
to communicate with Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Moravian 
organizations. "Favorable receptions" were given to the communica- 
tions, but little seems to have resulted. An exchange with the Tennes- 

16 Henry M. Wagstaff (ed.), Minutes of the North Carolina Manumission Society, 
1816-1834 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, [Volume 22, Numbers 
1 and 2, of The James Sprunt Studies in History and Political Science], 1934), 13-15, 
hereinafter cited as Wagstaff, Minutes. See also, Levi Coffin, Reminiscences of Levi 
Coffin, the Reputed President of the Underground Railroad (Cincinnati, Ohio: Robert 
Clarke Co., 1899), 74, hereinafter cited as Coffin, Reminiscences. 

17 Coffin, Reminiscences, 75. 

18 Wagstaff, Minutes, 39. 
10 Wagstaff, Minutes, 17. 

20 Wagstaff, Minutes, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 34. 

North Carolina Manumission Society 51 

see Manumission Society was more fruitful. This institution, also 
predominantly Quaker, had the same objectives as the North Carolina 
Manumission Society, and a correspondence which continued for 
several years was established. 21 

Overtures were made to other institutions. Financial sanction was 
given at the meeting of the General Association in 1818 for sending 
delegates to the Quaker-dominated American Convention for the 
Abolition of Slavery, soon to meet in Philadelphia. 22 A few years later 
the society wished to send another delegate, but the modest state 
of the treasury intervened. 23 

During its early years the society made periodic efforts to distribute 
antislavery literature. At the first convention in 1816 the Center 
branch delegates presented a document which the General Associa- 
tion printed for distribution. A few years later the society authorized 
the purchase of $100 worth of back issues of the Friend of Peace, a 
Quaker antislavery and reform journal, with the hope that members 
would distribute them among their slaveholding neighbors. 24 Officers 
of the American Convention for the Abolition of Slavery occasionally 
sent consignments of material which the society welcomed. 25 Any 
document which might arouse local animosity or cast a militant light 
on the organization was rejected. The society, for example, returned 
a cache of pamphlets to the Ohio Peace Society as not being in accord 
with the views of the organization. 26 

Between 1816 and 1824 the society sent only one petition to Con- 
gress and none to the state legislature. The society probably did not 
take recourse often to petitions because of the frequent memorials 
about slavery and the slave trade sent to the state legislature and 
Congress by the Yearly Meeting. Nevertheless late in 1817, after 
more than a year of discussion between the branches and the General 
Association, the corresponding secretary sent a petition to Congress. 
Although its content is not known, some 256 members signed it. 
Referred in Congress to a committee considering a similar memorial 
presented by Baltimore Quakers, it died of neglect at the end of the 

• 97 


21 Wagstaff, Minutes, 17-19. 

22 Wagstaff, Minutes, 28. 

23 Richard Mendenhall to Joseph Paul, December 22, 1821, Manumission Society- 

24 Wagstaff, Minutes, 15, 28, 30. 

25 See, for example, American Convention for the Abolition of Slavery to Richard 
Mendenhall, January 15, 1819; Richard Mendenhall to Joseph Paul, December 22, 1821, 
Manumission Society Papers. 

2G Wagstaff, Minutes, 25. 

27 Wagstaff, Minutes, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27. 

52 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The society's most constructive work took place in Negro educa- 
tion. Some time late in 1820 or early 1821 the New Garden branch 
established a school for Negro children with the hope of making them 
"useful members of the community, and fit for freedom." 28 Probably 
the children of trustee slaves and of neighboring masters attended. 
In the following summer the Coffin family opened a Sunday school 
for Negroes in New Garden. It was said that slaveholders permitted 
attendance until dissatisfied masters voiced complaints that some 
slaves had become "discontented and uneasy, and created a desire 
for the privileges that others had." 29 The efforts of the branches were 
noticed by the General Association, and in opening the convention 
in March, 1821, President Aaron Coffin stated that the society should 
establish a school for Negroes. The expense of the scheme, he sug- 
gested, could be carried largely by the subscribing masters. The dele- 
gates did not share Coffin's enthusiasm, and the question was referred 
to a committee. It was later decided that interest from the modest 
funds of the society might be employed for this purpose; however, 
nothing was done to further the matter. 30 

Thus the society during its early years carried on a limited cam- 
paign of antislavery activities. Little was done to improve the lot 
of the slave or to attract public attention to the cause. It was a small 
organization, not carrying on a controversial or aggressive program, 
and barely noticed by most North Carolinians. Rarely did the press 
take notice of its activities. Primarily it was a Quaker organization. 
Members did not wish to alarm their slaveholding neighbors, for 
almost from the time of the society's establishment members believed 
their cause "very unpopular." Richard Mendenhall, prominent in the 
society and the Jamestown branch, succinctly stated the objectives 
of the society: 

Our intention and object is the most gentle and pacinck manner grad- 
ually to promote the abolition of slavery and to endeavor to gain informa- 
tion on the subject — under a hope that some way will open for the relief 
and instruction of those unhappy beings still having in view the happiness 
and wellfare [sic'] of all. We are well aware of the importance as well as 
the delicacy of the subject and that it must be a work of time is the only 
thing expected or desired. And under these and similar sentiments we have 
associated together for the purpose of collecting and diffusing information 
of the subject. 31 

28 Wagstaff , Minutes, 58. 

29 Coffin, Reminiscences, 69-71. 

30 Wagstaff, Minutes, 59, 62-63. 

81 Richard Mendenhall to Elias B. Caldwell, July 6, 1819, Manumission Society Papers. 

North Carolina Manumission Society 53 

From the time of its establishment the society maintained an in- 
terest in the American Colonization Society. At the General Associa- 
tion meeting in December, 1816, delegates voted to correspond with 
that organization. A special committee wrote that the society believed 
it a "Duty, social, political and Religious to lend our willing aid to 
any measure that may promote the Grand and Supereminant [sic~\ 
object in View." 32 While declining to become an auxiliary of the 
national organization, the society wished to contribute funds, but 
financial limitations made it impractical. 33 Sympathy with the coloni- 
zation movement grew, and at the sessions of the General Association 
in the following year it was moved that the word "colonization" be 
incorporated into the name of the society. 34 Some delegates, however, 
dissented vigorously. Some members of the New Garden branch, led 
by Levi Coffin, walked out of the convention. Late in life Coffin re- 
called that the few slaveholders present insisted on discussing condi- 
tions for manumission. Sharp debate resulted over the importance of 
colonization. The convention ended by approving the motion; thus, 
"colonization" was incorporated into the title of the society. "We felt 
that the slave power had got the ascendency in our society, and that 
we could no longer work in it," Coffin charged. "The convention 
broke up in confusion, and our New Garden branch withdrew to 
itself, no longer co-operating with the others. The little antislavery 
band, composed mostly of Friends, continued to meet at New Gar- 
den. ,.." 35 

Even though Coffin coupled the change of name to the demands 
of the slaveholders, the charge cannot be accurately supported. Of 
the 23 delegates who attended the convention which changed the 
society's name, 13 were original incorporators of the society. They 
were probably Quakers. No more than ten could have been slave- 
holders, and such a high figure is unlikely. The modification of the 
name, therefore, resulted from a movement generated within the 
institution, not from the few slaveholders who had recently become 
members. The withdrawal of Coffin and his like-minded associates 
who placed more emphasis on the evils of slavery than on the ex- 
pediency of resettling Negroes began a movement within the society 
to promote the aims of colonization and to rid the society of the manu- 

32 North Carolina Manumission Society to American Colonization Society, May 25, 
1817; Wagstaff, Minutes, 210. 
^Wagstaff, Minutes, 37. 

34 Wagstaff, Minutes, 20. 

35 Coffin, Reminiscences, 75-76. 

54 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Repeatedly, controversy over the official name plagued the society. 
In August, 1819, a branch representative moved that the word "manu- 
mission" be dropped from the title. Discussion ensued, and the Gen- 
eral Association gave the problem to a committee which recommended 
in the following October that the word be retained, a finding con- 
curred in by the house. A rump delegation from New Garden which 
did not follow Coffin remained in the society and became outspoken 
opponents of colonization. In October, 1820, the New Garden con- 
tingent moved that "colonization ' be struck from the name of the 
society. Action was deferred until the next convention, when the 
motion was first carried but later directed to the next session for 
more definite approval. At the next meeting in September, 1821, 
there was not a quorum, and the final decision was delayed until the 
next January when, after much debate, it was decided to retain the 
word. 36 

The internal dissension in the society between the colonizationists 
and the manumissionists had a profound effect upon the interest of 
members. A lack of enthusiasm began as early as October, 1819, when 
only 28 delegates attended the General Association convention. 
Twelve delegates attended the sessions in the following spring, while 
in the following October only 15 delegates appeared. This number 
was duplicated at the next General Association in March, 1821. Soon 
the situation worsened. A quorum failed to appear at the September, 
1821, convention while the next meeting in January, 1822, showed 
some improvement with the attendance of 18 delegates. Two other 
General Association sessions in 1822, however, could not muster 
quorums. During the following two years there was a slight improve- 
ment, with 24 attending in December, 1823, and 16 in the following 
spring. 37 

Little was done to check the decline. In October, 1820, the society 
appointed two men to attend branch meetings at Caraway and 
Springfield, then unrepresented at the General Association. They 
were wholly unsuccessful, and these branches did not attend the 
following convention. 38 The antislavery cause came to rest more with 
zealous individuals than with the society. A quaker minister, the 
Reverend Joseph Hoag, who traveled through Guilford County in 
1823, made no mention of the society even though he was an old 
antislavery adherent. 39 

39 Wagstaff, Minutes, 35-36, 38, 45, 57, 62, 65. 
37 Wagstaff, Minutes, 36-37, 42-44, 56, 61-62, 64-68. 
38 Wagstaff, Minutes, 45-46, 56. 

i9 Joseph Hoag, Journal of the Life of Joseph Hoag (London, England: A. W. Ben- 
nett, 1862), 265-266, hereinafter cited as Hoag, Journal 

North Carolina Manumission Society 55 

Such were conditions in the summer of 1824 when Benjamin 
Lundy, an oldline advocate of colonization, visited the Quaker settle- 
ments. Lundy, the Quaker editor of the Genius of Universal Emanci- 
cipation, had long promoted Haiti as a refuge for free American 
Negroes. 40 While visiting the Friends' Meeting at Deep Creek he de- 
livered an address against slavery. Being well received, he gave some 
15 to 20 lectures during his sojourn. He created sufficient enthusiasms 
for the establishment of about 14 societies, all embracing gradual 
emancipation and colonization. 41 After hearing of the troubles of the 
Quakers' trustee Negroes he became more certain of Haiti's benefits, 
and he soon traveled to the island in the hope of promoting a program 
of colonization for the North Carolina slaves. 42 

Under the influence of Lundy and because of the mounting prob- 
lems of maintaining the trustee slaves, the members of the society 
rose to action. President Aaron Coffin, who in February, 1824, had 
thought it might be advisable to dissolve the society, changed his 
views by June of the same year and told the delegates to an especially 
called convention: 

Among other communications Lundy has published the following, "That 
the North Carolina Manumission & Colonization Society are about to 
Remodel their constitution, so as to become a manumission Society, which 
he thought would be for the better," I accord with the Idea. — But while I 
rejoice at the rapid march of freedom, & that the public mind is more 
enlightened, & ready to subscribe to the Justice of the cause we are em- 
barked in; — ... we all have professedly the same object in view, the 
gradual Emancipation of the Slave population; ... I also think the title 
ought to be in future, the Manumission Society of North Carolina. If that 
part of the title is retained, I should not be so tenacious of the rest, but 
think the old Society ought to be kept up, we are now prepared to go 



With this introduction the assemblage went on to reaffirm its faith 
in the old constitution to which had been added a few minor amend- 
ments. 44 

40 Benjamin Lundy and Others, The Life, Travels and Opinions of Benjamin Lundy, 
Including his Journeys to Texas and Mexico; with a Sketch of Contemporary Events, 
and a Notice of the Revolution in Hayti. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: W. D. Parrish, 
1847), 23-24, hereinafter cited as Lundy, Life. 

41 Lundy, Life, 22-23 ; Paul M. Sherrill, "The Quakers and the North Carolina Manu- 
mission Society," Trinity College Historical Society Publications, Series X (1914), 40. 

42 Rufus M. Jones, The Later Periods of Quakerism (London, England: Macmillan 
and Co., 2 volumes, 1921), I, 23-24. See also, Lundy, Life, 23-24. 

43 Wagstaff , Minutes, 78. 

44 Wagstaff, Minutes, 75. 

56 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Again the society actively campaigned for members. While there 
were only 14 delegates and six branches represented at the conven- 
tion in September, 1824, membership grew so rapidly by the follow- 
ing spring that 92 men, representing 19 branches, attended the Gen- 
eral Association. 45 During the winter of 1825 a committee of ten men 
contacted the societies organized by Lundy during the previous 
summer. President Mendenhall stated that the success in recruiting 
members was more than he "could with . . . most sanguine hopes, 
have anticipated. . . ." 46 By late 1825 the number of branches had 
climbed to 28, and 81 delegates assembled for the General Associa- 
tion sessions. At this time individual memberships reached 1,150, 
and within the next six months 500 more new members were re- 
cruited. 47 

Colonization as a solution for the slavery problem thoroughly 
captivated the growing ranks of the society. Encouraging free Negroes 
to migrate to foreign republics became the society's official doctrine. 
The members invited all slaveholders in North Carolina to prepare 
their bondsmen for ultimate colonization. Members believed that 
Negroes could be forced, as "an act of humanity," to leave the United 
States. Reflecting on past experience, a convention concluded that 
emancipation without provision for colonization might lead to 
vagrancy. 48 While the doctrine of colonization was dominant in the 
society's outlook, universal and gradual emancipation remained the 
ultimate goal. 

Lundy's visit to North Carolina and the increasing influence of 
the colonizationists in the society brought to the Friends' attention 
a suitable means by which the problems of their trustee slaves might 
be solved. In 1824 the agents of the Yearly Meeting managed 779 
slaves, and births annually increased the total by about 30. 49 The 
time and effort required to oversee these Negroes became a heavy 
burden to the Quaker community. The Yearly Meeting in November, 
1824, dissolved the old "Standing Committee" which had previously 
supervised the trustee slaves and empowered a much larger "Meeting 
for Sufferings" to assume control of the Negroes. The new committee 
was directed "to take into consideration the situation of the people of 

45 Wagstaff, Minutes, 79, 93-94. 

48 Aaron Coffin to Benjamin Lundy, March 14, 1825, quoted in Genius of Universal 
Emancipation (Baltimore, Maryland), March, 1825, hereinafter cited as Genius of 
Universal Emancipation. 

47 Wagstaff, Minutes, 97, 111-112. 

48 Wagstaff, Minutes, 103, 117, 118. 

49 Minutes of Yearly Meeting, 218-219. 

North Carolina Manumission Society 57 

colour under Friends' care." 50 The members of the Meeting for 
Sufferings were avid colonizationists; most of them were members 
of the North Carolina Manumission Society. Both the president of 
the society, Richard Mendenhall, and the treasurer, Nathan Menden- 
hall, were appointed to the Meeting for Sufferings, nearly all of whose 
members were active in the society. 51 In order to align itself more 
closely with the Meeting for Sufferings the society early in 1825 
established the "Committee on Emmigration." 52 

During 1825 the members of the Meeting for Sufferings and their 
fellow Quakers engaged in a thorough discussion of the merits of 
colonization. The general object of resettling the Negroes abroad, or 
possibly in the free states, met little opposition, but the place of relo- 
cation found the Friends considerably short of agreement. Lundy, 
during his visit to North Carolina, seems to have converted many 
Quakers, including Nathan and Richard Mendenhall, to Haitian 
emigration. 53 Other prominent Friends such as George Swain, David 
Worth, Jacob Hubbard, Jonathan Hadley, and Abel Coffin, who had 
been members of the Greensboro auxiliary of the American Coloniza- 
tion Society for many years, naturally supported relocation in Liberia, 
the African colony of that organization. 54 Those favoring Haiti argued 
that a fully developed society awaited the emigrants, while in Africa 
the Negroes might lapse into barbarism for lack of adequate guidance. 
Those supporting Liberia objected to the French and Roman Catholic 
influences in Haiti. 55 A few wanted the slaves to remain in the United 
States and to relocate in the free states, but they realized that not all 
the Negroes could be sent beyond the Ohio River, for "the prejudice 
against a [free] coloured population, was as great in Indiana, as in 
North Carolina." 56 By the end of 1825 the Quakers had settled their 
differences, and the Meeting for Sufferings agreed that both Haiti 
and Liberia would be suitable places for colonization. The North 
Carolina Manumission Society endorsed this policy partially, declar- 
ing that emigration to Haiti ought to be encouraged primarily with 

60 Minutes of Yearly Meeting, 215. 

51 Wagstaff, Minutes, passim. 

52 Memorandum of the Emigration Committee, signed by Zimri Stuart, January ?, 
1825, Manumission Society Papers. 

53 Minutes of Yearly Meeting, 217; Richard Mendenhall to the Meeting for Sufferings 
of Philadelphia, November 4, 1825, Letter Book of Sufferings, 15. 

64 Fifth Annual Report of the American Colonization Society (Washington, D. C: 
Davis and Force, 1822), 117. 

55 Nathan Mendenhall to the Meeting for Sufferings of Philadelphia, November 4, 
1825, Letter Book of Sufferings, 15; African Repository (November, 1826), II, 284; 
(July, 1825), I, 158. 

66 Samuel Charles to Jeremiah Hubbard, August 10, 1826, Letter Book of Sufferings, 

58 The North Carolina Historical Review 

colonization to Liberia promoted "with a view to give the Emigrants 
a choice in Countries." 57 

As soon as the Quakers adopted a definite policy, a campaign was 
launched for funds. The North Carolina Yearly Meeting in Novem- 
ber, 1825, authorized an appropriation of $1,000 for the Meeting for 
Sufferings. During the following year contributions of nearly $5,500 
were granted by yearly meetings in Rhode Island, New York, Penn- 
sylvania, and Ohio, as well as by wealthy Friends in the free states. 
Late in the year the North Carolina Yearly Meeting granted an addi- 
tional $2,000 to the project. 58 

With solid financial support the members of the Meeting for Suf- 
ferings and the manumission society as well as other interested 
Quakers sought to persuade their Negro charges to emigrate to a 
free country. In February, 1826, 40 slaves who had agreed to settle 
in Liberia under the auspices of the American Colonization Society 
set sail. Within a few months the "Sally Ann" was outfitted in Beau- 
fort, South Carolina, and sailed for Haiti with 121 of the trustee 
slaves. Two members of the society, Phineas Nixon and John Fellor, 
accompanied the Haitian expedition. 59 By the following September 
the voyage had been completed and the Negroes settled. 60 At the 
same time that the slaves were preparing to leave for Haiti and 
Liberia, 11 Negroes were sent to Philadelphia and 130 to Indiana 
and Ohio. 61 These programs cost $3,500. The Quakers still held over 
500 slaves in trust, but the prospect was bright because nearly all the 
remaining Negroes were willing to leave North Carolina. 62 

With such auspicious beginnings the Meeting for Sufferings and 
the members of the society's emigration committee redoubled their 
efforts. Solicitations for help in the next few years brought about 
$6,500 from yearly meetings in London, New York, Ohio, Pennsyl- 
vania, Indiana, and Maryland. 63 The new donations helped to finance 
two expeditions from North Carolina to Liberia. In February, 1827, 

67 Minutes of Yearly Meeting, 229-230 ; Wagstaff , Minutes, 103 ; and Minutes of the 
Meeting for Sufferings of the North Carolina Yearly Meeting, 10, Guilford College 
Library, hereinafter cited as Minutes of Sufferings. 

68 Minutes of Yearly Meeting, 230, 242; Minutes of Sufferings, 18, 23, 26; African 
Repository (November, 1826), II, 289; (March, 1827), III, 27. 

59 Minutes of Sufferings, 19; African Repository (February, 1826), I, 369; "Report 
of the Committee that was Appointed to Examine and Settle the Accounts Arising 
from the Shipment of People of Color to Hayti, 1826," Manumission Society Papers. 

60 H. M. Cooke to Richard Mendenhall, September 15, 1826, Manumission Society 

61 Address of the Meeting for Sufferings to the North Carolina Yearly Meeting, 1826, 
Letter Book of Sufferings, 36-37. 

62 African Repository (November, 1826), II, 288-289. 

63 Letter Book of Sufferings, 41, 42, 43, 54; The Friend (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), 
November 10, 1827, hereinafter cited as The Friend. 

North Carolina Manumission Society 59 

the "Doris" set sail with 80 of the trustee slaves, and in the following 
November the "Nautilus" left Norfolk with another group of 80. In 
addition another 70 Negroes were relocated in Indiana. 64 Early in 
1828 another ship carried about 60 of the trustee slaves to Liberia. 65 
Almost as quickly as the Negroes could be readied they were shipped 
to Africa. In 1830, 35 departed, followed by about 125 more during 
the next two years. 66 

The experience of the Quakers with the first and only voyage to 
Haiti eliminated the possibility of sending any more of the Negroes 
to the island. The cost of the expedition amounted to almost $3,000 
or $25 per passenger. The Friends found that the average cost of 
the passage to Liberia was only about $18. 67 In addition, the Ameri- 
can Colonization Society supervised the African expeditions, while 
the Meeting for Sufferings and the emigration committee had to cope 
with the many details arising from the voyage of the "Sally Ann." 
Also reports coming back from Haiti told of dissatisfaction among the 
colonists. 68 In view of these problems it was decided that "Africa 
is the place for them to go." 69 

Such an ambitious program of colonization created problems. The 
influx of Negroes into Indiana and Ohio aroused bitter feelings among 
the local residents and even among the Quakers who supposedly 
were to protect the new migrants. An Indiana editor accused the 
North Carolina Friends with committing an "unkindly act" in send- 
ing the "dangerous" free Negroes to his state. 70 Sentiment became so 
opposed to the entrance of free Negroes that the legislature of 
Indiana in 1831 passed a statute requiring entering Negroes to post 
a bond of $500. Ohio had passed a similar law many years before. 71 
A spokesman of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting wrote that he could 
not recommend the sending of the Negroes to his state because "this 

"African Repository (January, 1827), II, 351; (March, 1827), III, 25; (November, 
1827), III, 284; (December, 1827), III, 317-318. 

65 Minutes of Sufferings, 46-47. 

66 Minutes of Sufferings, 59; James Mace to Nathan Mendenhall, August 2, 1832, 
Letter Book of Sufferings, 79; African Repository (September, 1831), VII, 217; Minnie 
Spencer Grant, "The American Colonization Society in North Carolina" (unpublished 
master's thesis, Duke University, 1930), 122. 

67 Minutes of Sufferings, 46-47. 

68 Thomas Kennedy to Nathan Mendenhall, October 2, 1829, Letter Book of Sufferings, 
66; African Repository (April, 1829), V, 61-62. 

69 Aaron White to Nathan Mendenhall, August 23, 1827, Letter Book of Sufferings, 47. 
70 Public Leger \_sic] (Richmond, Indiana), n.d., quoted in African Repository 

(March, 1827), III, 25-26. 

71 Emma Lou Thornbrough, The Negro in Indiana: A Study of a Minority (Indian- 
apolis, Indiana: Indiana Historical Bureau, 1957), 58; Frank U. Quillin, The Color 
Line in Ohio (Ann Arbor, Michigan: George Wahr, 1913), 22. 

60 The North Carolina Historical Review 

description of people generally mingle with the lowest class here and 
thus remain in a degraded state/' 72 

The legal restrictions of Indiana and Ohio did not impede the 
North Carolina Quakers, for they discovered that the laws were 
"seldom enforced." 73 For a time after the passage of the Indiana 
law few Negroes were sent to the West, but by the mid-1830's the 
movement began again. In 1834 alone about 130 of the trustee slaves 
settled in the West. 74 As this effort was being carried on the Friends 
received numerous warnings from their brethren about the "great 
excitement and prejudices" in the free states. 75 Nevertheless the pro- 
gram continued for several years until the Yearly Meeting held title 
to less than 100 slaves, most of whom were too old to be moved to the 
West. 76 

The efforts of the Meeting for Sufferings and the North Carolina 
Manumission Society were by no means unimportant in the national 
colonization program. When it is considered that fewer than 4,000 
American Negroes were sent to Liberia before 1837, the efforts of the 
North Carolinians in colonizing about 420 slaves seem especially 
significant. 77 Oven ten per cent of the early settlers of Liberia were 
former bondsmen of North Carolina Quakers. 

After the society helped to launch the resettling program it main- 
tained a close relationship with the national colonization movement. 
During the winter of 1826-1827 Benjamin Swaim, past-president 
of the society, was sent as delegate to the convention of the American 
Colonization Society. The next year the General Association delegates 
expressed the same desire, but financial limitations caused a negative 
decision. 78 Nevertheless, individual members carried the liaison much 
closer. All of the officers of the Greensboro Auxiliary of the American 
Colonization Society were active members of the North Carolina 
Manumission Society. 79 In 1826 the American Colonization Society 
claimed that "in no year since the origins of the Colonization Society, 
have its friends multiplied so rapidly. . . . The Friends ... in North 
Carolina, have given their approbation to our cause. 

» 80 

72 John Cook to Nathan Mendenhall, October 26, 1827, Letter Book of Sufferings, 53. 

73 Indiana Yearly Meeting to North Carolina Yearly Meeting, c. 1832, Letter Book of 
Sufferings, 82-83. 

74 Minutes of Sufferings, 53, 74; The Friend, November 22, 1834. 

75 Minutes of Sufferings, 90-91, 85, 87. 

76 Minutes of Sufferings, passim. 

77 P. J. Staudenraus, The African Colonization Movement, 1816-1865 (New York: 
Columbia University Press, 1961), 251. 
78 Wagstaff, Minutes, 149, 151. 

79 The Eighth Annual Report of the American Society for Colonizing the Free People 
of Color of the United States (Washington, D. C: James C. Dunn, 1825), 68. 

80 The Ninth Annual Report of the American Society for Colonizing the Free People 
of Color of the United States (Washington, D. C: Way and Gideon, 1826), 51. 

North Carolina Manumission Society 61 

At the same time that the members of the society carried on an 
active antislavery campaign, they feared that their activities would 
arouse popular feeling. When a controversial issue was broached in 
a convention, the question was usually avoided by referral to a com- 
mittee. In 1828, for example, a convention decided that the question 
of Negro education was "inexpedient" as a society policy, while an- 
other convention declined to investigate the case of a Negro sup- 
posedly held illegally in bondage. 81 The society also avoided political 
questions. Never were such matters discussed, and only once did an 
officer, Richard Mendenhall, violate this unwritten rule when he 
criticized the federal sanction of slavery in Missouri many years 
before. 82 

Peculiar to the period after 1824 was the place given to women 
in the proceedings of the society. The first female auxiliary, James- 
town, was recognized in March, 1825. By September of the following 
year three more, Springfield, Center, and Kennet, had been sanc- 
tioned. The March, 1828, General Association was attended by two 
others, New Salem and Providence. Frequently the women presented 
written addresses to the convention sessions and occasionally con- 
tributed money to the society. The ladies never participated in dis- 
cussion. The approving male delegates frequently passed resolutions 
commending their exertions. The women's activities attracted Lundy's 
attention, and from time to time he printed the proceedings of their 
auxiliaries. 83 Some time after 1824 the men gave official recognition 
to the auxiliaries by amending the society's constitution. 84 The ladies 
even sent a petition to the state legislature urging that laws be passed 
punishing miscegenation and preventing the separation of the slave 
mother and her child. 85 

After the rejuvenation of the society in 1824, members began to 
approve a series of petitions to Congress and the General Assembly. 
In the first petition the society prayed Congress to give aid to the 
colonization movement. "We have an offer from the Government of 
Hayti," claimed the society, 

to receive as many of the coloured population among us, as we think 
proper to send, and it is understood that they will be admitted to equality 

81 Wagstaff, Minutes, 107, 152. 

82 Address of President Richard Mendenhall, Genius of Universal Emancipation, 
April, 1825. 

83 Wagstaff, Minutes, 136, 147, 160. See Genius of Universal Emancipation and Bal- 
timore Courier, November 12 and December 24, 1825. 

84 Manuscript copy of 1824 Constitution, Manumission Society Papers. 

85 Abigal Albertson and others to the North Carolina General Assembly, c. February 
2, 1827, Legislative Papers. 

62 The North Carolina Historical Review 

among themselves. . . . We think the subject worthy of the attention of 
the National Legislature, and hope you will feel disposed to promote their 
emigration while the opportunity serves. 86 

Although the plea went unanswered, the society was not discouraged. 
About a year later a memorial was addressed to the state legislature 
urging a liberalization of the slave code. Again in March, 1826, the 
General Association approved a petition requesting the prohibition 
of the interstate slave trade, while in the autumn of the same year 
another memorial of the same content was sent to the North Carolina 
Assembly. Subsequent memorials to Congress and the state legislature 
urged the abolition of the slave trade and slavery in the District of 
Columbia, financial aid to the colonization movement, and a prohibi- 
tion against the further introduction of slaves into North Carolina. 
When the society realized the uselessness of such pleadings, its 
enthusiasm lagged. After 1828 only a few memorials were approved. 87 

The society continued to distribute antislavery literature. For a 
time it was hoped that a printing press could be established. President 
Swaim in September, 1826, urged the General Association delegates 
to provide a press, but the society decided that the cost would be 
prohibitive. It was agreed that a periodical might be issued if suf- 
ficient subscribers could be recruited. Subsequently a committee 
prepared a prospectus, but recommended that the project be dis- 
continued because of its high cost. 88 The society, however, did dis- 
tribute literature, especially at the time that the trustee slaves were 
being resettled in Liberia and Haiti. 89 

The antislavery enthusiasm of many members went beyond the 
limited scope of the society. The most aggressive and articulate was 
William Swaim, the non-Quaker editor of the Greensborough Patriot. 
After he purchased the newspaper in 1829, 90 he informed his readers 
that one of his objectives as a journalist was to seek "a general 
improvement in the condition of our coloured population. . . ." 91 
The Patriot, serving as a medium of publicity for the society, fre- 
quently carried the transactions of the General Associations along 
with antislavery articles. 92 Believing Lundy the "most zealous, con- 
sistent, and untiring philanthropist in the United States," Swaim 

88 Genius of Universal Emancipation, January, 1825. 

87 Wagstaff, Minutes, 99, 114, 134, 153-155, 162-163, 170; Legislative Papers, especially 
Board of Managers to the North Carolina General Assembly, March (?), 1827. 

88 Wagstaff, Minutes, 130, 134-135, 144. 

89 Genius of Universal Emancipation, July, 1825. 

00 Patriot and Greensborough Palladium, April 4, 1829. 

01 Greensborough Patriot, January 6, 1831. 
92 Greensborough Patriot, July 7, 1830. 

North Carolina Manumission Society 63 

urged North Carolinians to subscribe to the Genius of Universal 
Emancipation. 93 

Others were active. Four members of the society, Benjamin Swaim, 
William Swain, Thomas Moore, and Richard Mendenhall were sub- 
scription agents for Lundy. 94 A few penned their views in letters to 
the press, 95 while others aided co-operative slaveholders in preparing 
their slaves for colonization. George C. Mendenhall of Jamestown 
urged slaveholders to emancipate and colonize their bondsmen during 
their lifetimes in order to assure freedom for the Negroes. 96 In 1830 
Amos Weaver of the Reedy Fork branch was elected to the General 
Assembly after a campaign in which he was opposed by the "advo- 
cates of slavery." 97 Vestal Coffin, a member of the New Garden 
branch, frequently escorted emancipated slaves to the free states or 
to the coast for emigration to one of the Negro republics. 98 Other 
members, either individually or in groups, corresponded with slave- 
holders in an effort to promote colonization. 99 The manuscript minutes 
of the Jamestown branch indicate that many individuals carried on 
limited antislavery activities. 100 

The antislavery zeal of some members of the society may have 
prompted their participation in illegal activities. Late in life Levi 
Coffin wrote that there was an active underground railroad in Guil- 
ford and Randolph counties. Supposedly Vestal Coffin was the prime 
mover of this activity. 101 Evidence, though, is meager. Occasionally 
masters advertised for slaves who had been seduced away from them. 
"From what I can learn from different sources," a slaveholder claimed, 
"I am induced to believe that [a slave] . . . has been persuaded to 
leave me by some white person, who promised him freedom on their 
reaching some free state." 102 Also an unsigned committee report of 
the society tells of a runaway Negro who was "secreted by a Quaker 

83 Greensborough Patriot, May 9, 1832. 

94 Genius of Universal Emancipation, March, 1832, February, 1833. 

96 Greensborough Patriot, passim, 1830; Genius of Universal Emancipation, August, 

68 George C. Mendenhall to Martha Moore, June 14, 1825, North Carolina Miscellan- 
eous Collection, Duke Manuscript Collection, Duke University, Durham, hereinafter 
cited as North Carolina Miscellaneous Collection. 

87 Genius of Universal Emancipation, November, 1830. 

88 George C. Mendenhall to Martha Moore, June 14, 1829, North Carolina Miscel- 
laneous Collection. 

"Wagstaff, Minutes, 147. 

100 Minutes of the Jamestown branch, Manumission Society Papers. 

101 Coffin, Reminiscences, 57. 

102 Western Carolinian (Salisbury), October 22, 1832. See also Miners' and Farmers' 
Journal (Charlotte), September 29, 1832; Carolina Observer and Fayetteville Gazette, 
September 11, 1832; Western Carolinian, August 20, 1832. 

64 The North Carolina Historical Review 

on his way ... to Indiana." 103 Although evidence is scant, probably 
some of the Quakers engaged in this dangerous business. 

At the same time that the society was conducting a campaign 
against slavery, the economy and outlook of the South were under- 
going basic modifications which were to have a profound influence on 
southern antislavery activities. As the Southwest was opened to set- 
tlement and cotton production, North Carolina, among other states 
of the older South, became a source of supply for Negroes for that 
region. Slave prices, generally low during the first quarter of the 
century, rose after 1825 until the mid-1830's when prime field hands 
commanded $600 to $800. 104 While North Carolina did not share in 
the cotton boom, slave labor came into more common use in the 
tobacco fields in the Piedmont. The Quakers could only lament the 
increasing dependence of their neighbors on slaves. 105 

The growing importance of slavery in the economy of the South 
and the attacks of the radical antislavery adherents in the North 
caused southerners to reappraise their domestic institutions. As the 
abolitionists became more vehement, editors in North Carolina and 
the South become more convinced of the beneficence of slavery. By 
1830 abolitionism had become an "infidel creed and licentious doc- 
trine/' 106 Northern antislavery propaganda, the Nat Turner rebellion, 
and the consequent fear of insurrection only added to the invectives 
heaped upon abolitionists. Editors came to see only potential danger 
in antislavery activities. 107 

The conservative reaction in North Carolina was mirrored in modi- 
fications in the slave code. As early as 1826 it was made illegal for a 
free Negro to migrate into the state. At the same time the legislature 
deemed it a criminal offense for a free Negro to be found guilty of 
"idleness" or "dissipation," conviction bringing up to three years in 
slavery and the loss of all his children. In 1830 the state tightened 

108 "Report of the Committee Having the Care of the Pitts Negroes," unsigned, c. 1826, 
Manumission Society Papers. 

101 Thomas Ruffin to James Iredell, January 27, 1829, James Iredell Papers, Duke 
Manuscript Collection; Fayetteville Observer, January 27, 1835, quoted in Rosser 
Howard Taylor, Slaveholding in North Carolina: An Economic View (Chapel Hill: 
The University of North Carolina Press [Volume 18, Numbers 1 and 2, of The James 
Sprunt Studies in History and Political Science], 1926), 73, hereinafter cited as Taylor, 
Slaveholding in North Carolina. 

105 Cornelius Oliver Cathey, Agricultural Development in North Carolina, 1783-1860 
(Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press [Volume 38 of The James 
Sprunt Studies in History and Political Science'], 1956), 107; Taylor, Slaveholding in 
North Carolina, 32-33. 

109 Western Carolinian, March 21, 1830. 

107 Carolina Watchman (Salisbury), October 19, 1833; Western Carolinian, October 
17, 1831, April 8, 1833; Raleigh Register, n.d., quoted in Liberator (Boston, Massachu- 
setts), October 15, 1831; Cape-Fear Recorder (Wilmington), May 11, 1831. 

North Carolina Manumission Society 65 

the manumission laws. In addition to the slaveholder filing a cer- 
tificate of manumission, he had to post notice at the county court- 
house, advertise his intent in a newspaper for six weeks, prove that 
he held unobstructed title to the slave, and offer a bond of $1,000, 
assuring that the Negro would conduct himself well and leave the 
state within 90 days, never to return. An exception was made for the 
slave who had rendered meritorious service; he could remain in the 
state provided the master posted a $500 bond. Other changes were 
made in 1830. If a resident free Negro should leave the state and re- 
main away more than 90 days, no longer was he considered a resident 
of North Carolina, and he was subject to the statute prohibiting the 
entrance of foreign Negroes. Also, a free Negro or mulatto could not 
marry a slave, a practice heretofore tolerated. 108 

The Nat Turner insurrection heralded even more drastic modifica- 
tions. In 1831 the legislature enacted laws prohibiting that a slave or 
free Negro could no longer "preach or exhort" to slaves. Action taken 
in the following year sought to terminate the circulation of anti- 
slavery literature; the first offense brought imprisonment, the second 
death. The General Assembly also outlawed the teaching of a Negro 
to read or write. 109 

As the South became more belligerent over slavery, the enthusiasm 
of the antislavery Quakers lessened. As early as March, 1829, only 46 
delegates from 22 branches attended the General Association. At the 
session in the following autumn 36 delegates represented only 18 
branches. Sixteen men were elected to attend the spring convention 
in 1831, while in the fall a meeting did not take place, probably as a 
result of the hysteria generated by the Turner rebellion. During the 
next year no more than 16 delegates could be mustered for either the 
May or September sessions. 110 

Leaders in the society feared the growing proslavery persuasion 
in North Carolina because of its possible effects on the antislavery 
cause. As early as 1826 President Moses Swaim noted that the liber- 
ality of the press had declined. He explained that the "deep rooted 
prejudices" of the people of the state should make the society more 
cautious. 111 With similar convictions President Henry Powell remarked 
some years later in 1833: 

108 Frederick Nash, James Iredell, and William H. Battle, revisers, The Revised 
Statutes of the State of North Carolina . . . (Raleigh: Turner and Hughes, 2 volumes, 
1837), I, c. CXI, ss. 57-77, hereinafter cited as Revised Statutes of North Carolina. 

109 Revised Statutes of North Carolina, I, c. CXI, s. 34. See also, c. XXXIV, s. 74. 
130 Wagstaff, Minutes, 173-174, 181-182, 199-203. 

1,1 Wagstaff, Minutes, 126, 129. 

66 The North Carolina Historical Review 

I have ever remarked, through my small sphere of observation, that when 
anything becomes unpopular, the spirit or the principles which seemed to 
keep it in action sank into Oblivion, and died away, either Religion, 
Politics, or what not, would share the same fate. This is the case I presume 
in a great degree with the Manumission Societies. . . , 112 

But more factors than the unpopularity of the antislavery cause pre- 
cipitated the decline of the society. Established on nonaggressive 
principles, at no time could it become militant. Thus it seemed not 
unnatural when President Benjamin Swaim elaborated on this theme 
in 1828: 

We have come together, not to make an ostentatious parade of our 
accumulating numbers to the terror of the social order, — not to brandish 
our . . . threatenings against the civil institutions of our beloved country; 
no, nor even to make a vain glorious boast of our superior proficiency 
in the science of human government, or to claim the exercise of any undue 
influence. 113 

While the rising antipathy of the people of North Carolina tended 
to intimidate the society, the westward movement helped to dwindle 
the supply of antislavery adherents among the Quakers. During the 
first half of the nineteenth century the Quaker community in North 
Carolina was decimated by the flow of its members to the West. As 
early as 1803 there were 800 Quaker families in Ohio, many of whom 
had originally come from North Carolina. 114 Soon after 1800 the 
movement focused on Indiana. Sections of Wayne County, first settled 
by North Carolina Quakers in 1807, attracted many migrants. Late in 
life the first settler of the region claimed the honor "of having been 
the pioneer of the great body of Friends now . . . found in this 
region." 115 After 1807 it was said that a "flood of emigrants" came to 
Indiana from Randolph and Guilford counties. 116 If the New Garden 
Friends' Meeting can be taken as representative, 52 families in addi- 
tion to 28 individuals migrated to Indiana before 1846. 117 Levi Coffin 
claimed that the death of antislavery activities in New Garden re- 

112 Wagstaff , Minutes, 227. 

^Patriot and Greensborough Palladium, October 25, 1828, 

114 Stephen B. Weeks, Southern Quakers and Slavery, a Study in Institutional History 
(Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1896), 256-260, 269-270, hereinafter 
cited as Weeks, Southern Quakers and Slavery. 

115 Andrew W. Young, History of Wayne County, Indiana (Cincinnati, Ohio: Robert 
Clarke and Co., 1872), 29. 

118 Henry Clay Fox (ed.), Memoirs of Wayne County and the City of Richmond, 
Indiana (Madison, Wisconsin: Western Historical Society, 2 volumes, 1912), I, 28. 

117 Weeks, Southern Quakers and Slavery, 263. 

North Carolina Manumission Society 67 

suited from the lure of the West. 118 In 1832 a contemporary claimed 
that 69 Quakers had moved to the West from Randolph County dur- 
ing the previous year. 119 From 1824 to 1848 twenty-three families 
departed from the Hopewell Meeting, and the church ceased to 
exist. 120 By 1830 the Greensborough Patriot, probably the most pop- 
ular newspaper among North Carolina Friends, listed a subscription 
agent in Indiana. 121 

Slavery caused many of the Quakers to leave North Carolina. 
Opposing the institution on religious and ethical grounds, the Friend 
could do little in the face of opposition to carry on his activities. 
Evidence is abundant to demonstrate that many Quakers left the 
state because of slavery. A traveler recalled that he asked what had 
become of the Friends and was told: "They all moved off. . . . The 
Quakers told us for several years, that if we did not use our slaves 
better they would quit the country, for they could not endure to see 
it; but we did not believe them until we saw them go. . . ." 122 
Levi Coffin recalled that many of his antislavery friends moved to the 
West to live in a free state. 123 

In 1830 the loyal members of the society began to worry seriously 
about the declining interest of their brethren in the antislavery cause. 
The real difficulty was stated by a committee appointed to investigate 
the problem: 

Many of the members seem desirous to promote the cause, but some of them 
are too remiss in their efforts. Many are rather discouraged from the slow 
progress of the principles among their Neighbours, which operates against 
more vigorous exertions on their part. By what [we] could learn, even 
those who hold Slaves, are many of them not rigid, but admit the im- 
propriety of Slavery. They, however, permit supposed self-interest to over- 
power conviction. 124 

In order to bolster interest the General Association in September, 
1830, resolved that 12 months hence all unrepresented branches were 
to be expelled from the society. Parliamentary maneuvers delayed en- 

118 Coffin, Reminiscences, 76. 

119 Greensborough Patriot, December 12, 1832. 

120 Weeks, Southern Quakers and Slavery, 76. 
321 Greensborough Patriot, January 6, 1830. 
128 Hoag, Journal, 185. 

^Coffin, Reminiscences, 76; Greensborough Patriot, May 3, 1832, December 12, 1832; 
Gordon Esley Finnie, "The Antislavery Movement in the South, 1778-1836: Its Rise 
and Decline and its Contribution to Abolitionism in the West" (unpublished doctoral 
dissertation, Duke University, 1962), 356-369, hereinafter cited as Finnie, "The Anti- 
slavery Movement in the South." 

m Wagstaff, Minutes, 168. 

68 The North Carolina Historical Review 

forcement, and in the following summer the motion was rescinded. 125 
Next the society resorted to advertising. During August, 1832, a brief 
announcement appeared in the Greensborough Patriot: "All branches 
ever recognized by the General Association are still considered as 
members of the same and are earnestly solicited to be represented in 
the approaching session." 126 But this too failed to bring back the 
errant brothers. 

It was against this background that the society began its final years. 
Only a "bare quaram" was present at the General Association in the 
autumn of 1832, and the only important question discussed was 
whether the society should continue to operate. At the next conven- 
tion, in March, 1833, only 17 delegates attended; they debated the 
same question and decided in favor of continuation. In July, 1834, 
twelve delegates from Center, Springfield, and Union assembled in 
a demoralized convention. After due consideration the members re- 
solved "that this institution has not yet achieved the whole object 
which Providence has designed for it. Therefore, be it further re- 
solved that we continue this institution." To carry out the decision 
officers were chosen for the following two years; Benjamin Swaim, 
an old and faithful member, was elected president. It was then 
agreed to meet in the Center Meeting House on March 3, 1835. This 
convention never assembled. 127 

The North Carolina Manumission Society was a manifestation of 
antislavery sentiment among North Carolinians. It was one of many 
similar societies that dotted the South prior to 1830. Unlike most, the 
society was primarily a Quaker organization and incorporated not 
only the equalitarian principles of the brotherhood of man, but also 
its own interpretation of Christian doctrine in its approach to slavery. 

The society made its most significant contribution to the American 
antislavery movement when it joined with the Yearly Meeting in the 
program of colonization. Only at this time did members rise above 
their usual timidity to advocate a cause in which they believed. The 
society, however, accomplished little else. Neither did it mobilize 
public sentiment nor improve the conditions of slavery. Especially in 
its later years it attracted few interested slaveholders. In failing to 
capture a non-Quaker element in membership, the society lost effec- 
tive means of appealing to the community at large. 

The society kept the problem of human bondage before the North 

1S5 Wagstaff, Minutes, 196, 197. 

n9 Greensborough Patriot, August 15, 1832. 

^Wagstaff, Minutes, 203-205, 208. 

North Carolina Manumission Society 69 

Carolina Quaker population. A constant attention to the evils of 
slavery and, after 1824, to the benefits of colonization helped to 
consolidate Quaker thought. The Friends' interest in slavery led many 
of them to migrate to the Northwest where they found a more con- 
genial atmosphere. It is certain that the North Carolina Friends not 
only made a significant contribution to the southern antislavery move- 
ment, but that the resettled Quakers in the West became equally as 
important in antislavery activities. 


Finnie, "The Antislavery Movement in the South," 446-453. 


By William J. Donnelly * 

On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded. By January 8, 
1861, the Gulf States returned secessionist majorities to their state 
conventions, and by the end of the month Mississippi, Alabama, 
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed South Carolina's 
example and "resumed" their sovereignty. After the fall of Fort 
Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops, the seceding Border States, 
Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina, joined the Lower 
South and completed secession. 1 

Though American historians agreed on the facts of secession, they 
often differed over its nature and causes. Some stressed the long-term 
sectional conflict, others the immediate events of withdrawal, as the 
cause of the South's seceding. Some stressed southern grievances, 
others blamed Republican victory and intransigence. And whether 
the South was justified or unwise, whether secession and war were 
inevitable or repressible, and whether northerners and southerners of 
the 1860's had conspired or blundered or merely defended their rights 
influenced historians' views of the Civil War and affected their assess- 
ment of secession. 

In describing secession, succeeding generations of historians gave 
differing interpretations of southern support for the movement. To 
some, conspirators hastily voted the South out of the Union. To 
others, "the people" worked their will. Most, however, abandoned the 
exclusive categories of conspiracy and popular movement, gave a 

* Mr. Donnelly is Instructor in American History, Saint Paul's College, Lawrence- 
ville, Virginia. 

1 Avery 0. Craven, The Growth of Southern Nationalism, 1848-1861 (Baton Rouge: 
Louisiana State University Press, 1953), 362, 365, 367-369, 372, 375, hereinafter cited 
as Craven, Southern Nationalism; William B. Hesseltine and David L. Smiley, The 
South in American History (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960), 
273, hereinafter cited as Hesseltine and Smiley, The South; Dwight L. Dumond (ed.), 
Southern Editorials on Secession (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1931), xx, 
hereinafter cited as Dumond, Southern Editorials. 

Historiography of Southern Support 71 

more sophisticated interpretation of secession, yet still questioned 
whether or not southerners wanted to secede. 

"The present secession movement," Stephen A. Douglas told a 
large crowd in Chicago in 1861, "is the result of an enormous con- 
spiracy formed ... by leaders in the Southern Confederacy more 
than twelve months ago." Abraham Lincoln agreed. Before a special 
session of Congress of July 4, 1861, Lincoln blamed the war on 
"seceder politicians" and absolved most southerners from complicity 
in secession. George Bancroft, at the time more a partisan than a 
scholar, also viewed secession as a conspiracy. In a letter to a British 
friend, he emphasized southern unionism, claiming that plotting poli- 
ticians, not the people, disrupted the Union to erect a "slave empire." 2 

During and immediately after the war, Union sympathizers further 
elaborated the conspiracy theory. Popular writers and politicians, 
condemning rather than explaining secession, used their histories to 
assign personal guilt for rebellion and war. But despite their agree- 
ment on the nature of secession, they disagreed on the motives for it. 
Elliot G. Storke, for example, said the South seceded to protect 
slavery. William G. Brownlow and Joel T. Headly thought slavery a 
sham issue and said that the loss of political power and patronage 
drove the South to secession. 3 

All, however, felt that the majority of southerners were loyal and 
law-abiding. Disaffected politicians put secession over on the South. 
They had not acted rashly, for they followed a long-planned and well 
executed plot. And according to "Parson" Brownlow, one of the "faith- 
ful among the faithless" of Tennessee, they enacted "the most wicked, 
diabolical, and infernal scheme ever set on foot for the ruin of any 
country." 4 

Henry Wilson, James G. Blaine, and John A. Logan, who in their 

2 New York Daily Tribune, June 13, 1861; John G. Nicolay and John M. Hay (eds.), 
The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln (New York: F. D. Tandy Company, 12 vol- 
umes, 1905), VI, 297-325; George Bancroft to Dean Milman, August 15, 1861, in Mark 
A. DeWolfe Howe, The Life and Letters of George Bancroft (New York: Charles 
Scribner's Sons, 2 volumes, 1908), II, 133-143; all as cited in Thomas J. Pressly, 
Americans Interpret Their Civil War (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University 
Press, 1954), 5, 8-10, hereinafter cited as Pressly, Civil War. 

'Elliot G. Storke, A Complete History of the Great American Rebellion (Auburn, 
New York: The Auburn Publishing Company, 2 volumes, 1863), I, 23-24, hereinafter 
cited as Storke, Great American Rebellion; William G. Brownlow, Sketches of the Rise, 
Progress and Decline of Secession (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: George W. Childs, 
1862), 116-117, hereinafter cited as Brownlow, Secession; Joel T. Headley, The Great 
Rebellion: A History of the Civil War in the United States (Hartford, Connecticut: 
American Publishing Company, 2 volumes bound in 1, 1866-1867), I, 11, hereinafter 
cited as Headley, The Great Rebellion. 

* Pressly, Civil War, 18; Storke, Great American Rebellion, I, 143-144; Headley, The 
Great Rebellion, I, 37-38; Brownlow, Secession, 6, 92-93, 158-159. 

72 The North Carolina Historical Review 

histories defended Republican principles and waved the bloody shirt, 
gave later but similar expressions of the conspiracy theme. Wilson, 
an antislavery advocate, a reconstruction radical, and Grant's Vice- 
President, identified slavery as the southern cause, and secession as 
a conspiracy. A decade later, the two veteran Republican politicians, 
Blaine and "Black Jack" Logan, found the North right and the South 
wrong, but, like Wilson, admitted that southern politicians "dra- 
gooned'' the people out of the Union. Only George B. McClellan, in 
his McClellan s Own Story, offered a qualified northern dissent. And 
though he disagreed with the conspiracy thesis, he still blamed 
southern extremists for secession. 5 

The South, however, had its own defenders. James Williams and 
Edward A. Pollard during the war, and Alexander H. Stephens after 
it, disregarded the conspiracy interpretation in explaining secession, 
held stubborn and uncompromising northerners responsible for the 
war, and in general tried to vindicate the southern stand. In A Con- 
stitutional View of the Late War Between the States, Stephens pre- 
sented the South's legal rationalizations for seceding and contended 
that the so-called conspirators "aimed at nothing, and desired noth- 
ing," but the Constitution and their rights. But though these southern 
writers did much to refute the conspiracy thesis, the more critical 
and less passionate historians of the next generation felt obliged to 
confront the explanation of secession as a conspiracy. 6 

As the war emotions subsided, better trained and more objective 
historians eventually interpreted secession. Between 1880 and the 
first decades of the twentieth century, national historians wrote gen- 
eral surveys of United States history which considered the Civil War 
and propounded unionist points of view. Most saw slavery as the 
cause of secession and war. James Ford Rhodes, for example, claimed 
that the South went out of the Union to protect slavery. He also 

5 Henry Wilson, History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America (Boston, 
Massachusetts: James R. Osgood and Company, 3 volumes, 1872-1884), I, vi-viii; James 
G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield (Norwich, Connecticut: 
The Henry Bill Publishing Company, 2 volumes, 1884-1886), II, 26; John A. Logan, 
The Great Conspiracy : Its Origins and History (New York: A. R. Hart and Company, 
1886), 340-341, 665; George B. McClellan, McClellan's Own Story (New York: C. L. 
Webster and Company, 1887), 37; all cited in Pressly, Civil War, 39, 44-46. 

Edward A. Pollard, A Southern History of the War: The First Year of the War 
(New York: C B. Richardson, 1863), 36-38; James Williams, The South Vindicated: 
Being A Series of Letters Written for the American Press During the Canvass for the 
Presidency in 1860, With a Letter to Lord Brougham on the John Brown Raid, and a 
Survey of the Result of the Presidential Contest, and Its Consequences (London, Eng- 
land: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1862), 253, 255, 357; Alexander 
H. Stephens, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between The States (Philadel- 
phia, Pennsylvania: National Publishing Company, 2 volumes, 1868-1870), II, 126, 301, 
313-314, 321. 

Historiography of Southern Support 73 

asserted that slavery caused southerners to conjure up their state 
rights arguments. Hermann von Hoist, on the other hand, recognized 
the causative importance of slavery, but also emphasized the break- 
down of understanding between the North and the South. To Von 
Hoist, Lincoln's election persuaded the South to secede. Since the 
Republicans threatened to stop the extension of slavery, Von Hoist 
contended, southerners felt forced to restrict and to defend slavery 
while believing that slavery had to expand to survive. The South 
thus left the Union because of the supposed Republican threat to 
slavery. But Von Hoist considered this threat unreal. 7 

These historians outlined regional, political, and economic varia- 
tions within the South, described the unanimity of southern opinion 
in 1861, and dismissed the partisan approach to history and the 
conspiracy interpretation of secession. During the same era, J. J. 
McSwain, a southerner, joined with the Unionists in abandoning the 
conspiracy hypothesis. McSwain stated, however, that "truth and 
right" rather than "economic expediency" or "political revenge" 
brought on secession. And he also contended that sectionalism has 
always characterized American politics and that allegiance to the 
state was more than a southern sectional monopoly. 8 

But as historians stopped blaming certain southerners for causing 
the war, they usually implicated the southern people in the secession 
movement. In the History of the United States of America, Under 
the Constitution, James Schouler refused to view secession as "the 
crime of a few Southern leaders." Southerners, Schouler said, de- 
stroyed the Union as willingly as northerners defended it. Both Von 
Hoist and Rhodes cited South Carolina, where slaveholders and non- 
slaveholders celebrated secession, to show the popular support for 
the movement. To prove that the people backed secession, Von Hoist 
also noted the South's calling secession a sovereign right, "older" 
than and "above" the Constitution, a proposition with which most 
southerners agreed. Rhodes also found the right of secession a popular 

'James Ford Rhodes, History of the United States From The Compromise of 1850 
To The Final Restoration of Home Rule At The South in 1877 (New York and London, 
England: The Macmillan Company, 7 volumes, 1900-1919), III, 119-120, 280, herein- 
after cited as Rhodes, History; Hermann Eduard von Hoist, The Constitutional and 
Political History of the United States (Chicago, Illinois: Callaghan and Company, 8 
volumes, 1877-1892), VII, 245, 259, 261, 271-281, hereinafter cited as Von Hoist, 

"Pressly, Civil War, 48; Von Hoist, History, VII, 256-258, 267-269; James Schouler, 
History of the United States, Under The Constitution (New York: Dodd, Mead and 
Company, 7 volumes, 1894-1913), V, 509, hereinafter cited as Schouler, History; J. J. 
McSwain, The Causes of Secession (Greenville, South Carolina: n.p., 1917), iii-iv, 15, 17. 

74 The North Carolina Historical Review 

rallying point for the South: Even Unionists like Stephens in Georgia 
upheld it. 9 

Rhodes, moreover, stated and refuted the conspiracy hypothesis. 
To Rhodes, those who explained secession as a plot presented little 
evidence. The vote for conventions in Alabama, in Georgia, and in 
Louisiana, they contended, was less than that for the presidential 
election. And in Georgia a storm on election day supposedly kept 
many conservatives away from the polls. The conduct of the secession 
conventions further revealed a conspiracy behind the South's with- 
drawal from the Union. The Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and 
Louisiana conventions defeated proposals to submit the secession 
ordinances to a popular vote. And other conventions voted down 
resolutions to get a redress of grievances within the Union. 10 

Despite these facts, Rhodes said, previous writers failed to prove 
"that the politicians led the people by the nose." So-called conspira- 
tors, such as Davis and Toombs, had a hard time keeping pace with 
the people. And in not submitting the ordinances of secession to the 
people, convention politicians feared the hazard of delay rather than 
the possibility of popular disapproval. The conventions, moreover, 
acted with the "best of precedents." Since they had ratified the Con- 
stitution without submitting it to the people, they had merely repealed 
that ratification in the same way. Thus, in seceding the South pro- 
ceeded in a "regular" and "constitutional" manner. The people know- 
ingly voted for secessionist conventions, and the chosen representa- 
tives carried out the popular will. 11 

To Rhodes, southern unionists in 1861 represented a minority. 
Secret conventions or intimidation were never needed or widely used 
to suppress them. In fact, the Milledgeville mob, which gathered out- 
side of Georgia's secret convention, expressed the people's choice by 
demanding immediate secession. 12 

By joining the "rightfulness of slavery and the sovereignty of the 
States," Rhodes continued, secession became a southern program, 
spread through propaganda, and gradually pervaded public opinion. 
Like all movements, secession needed leaders, "but planters and law- 
yers of local influence, village attorneys, cross-road stump speakers, 
journalists, and the people acted on the men of national reputation 
instead of being led by them." 13 

e Schouler, History, V, 509; Rhodes, History, III, 119-120, 193, 197, 206-215; Von 
Hoist, History, VII, 245-247, 275-276. 

10 Rhodes, History, III, 273-274. 

11 Rhodes, History, III, 272-277. 

12 Rhodes, History, III, 278-279. v 
18 Rhodes, History, III, 277-278. 

Historiography of Southern Support 75 

Later historians followed their predecessors in repudiating the 
simple conspiracy interpretation of secession. At the same time, how- 
ever, they questioned the popular support for the movement and 
directed attention to southern unionism. Civil War and state his- 
torians and those writing about various aspects of the sectional 
struggle outlined the differences between the Lower South and the 
Border States, the changes in state and local opinion as the South 
approached secession, and the differences between northern and 
southern unionism. Agreeing, for the most part, that the war had 
been a tragedy and a mistake, they played down the conspiracy theme 
and concentrated on the conspirators. 

In 1921, in The Peaceable Americans, Mary Scrugham described 
most Americans' peaceful intentions in 1860, pointed to the needless 
misunderstanding which divided the sections, and presented some 
of the evidence used in later revisions of Civil War history. In the 
same year, Chauncey S. Boucher, disproving the existence of an ag- 
gressive, united slave power, agreed substantially with Scrugham's 
interpretation of secession. To Scrugham, Americans "as a people" 
failed to foresee or to will "the event which was about to transpire in 
1861." Similarly, Boucher found the South without unity throughout 
1859 and 1860. Even South Carolina, which in December of 1859 
mustered only enough unity to call for a southern meeting to establish 
a plan of action, lacked agreement as well as a program. 14 

Both Scrugham and Boucher used the election of 1860 as an indi- 
cation of southern unionism. Secession had not been "a clear-cut 
issue" in the election; thus, it had never been put to the people. The 
election returns revealed the strong conservatism of the South. 
Breckinridge, the representative of southern extremists willing to 
risk secession, received only 45 per cent of the popular vote. And 
"neutrals," the backers of Douglas and Bell, won majorities in eight 
slaves states: Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, 
Tennessee, Georgia, and Louisiana. They secured 45 per cent of the 
vote in North Carolina, Arkansas, and Alabama. Douglas and Bell, 
both Union candidates, closely represented the South's true opinion. 
And, as Scrugham said, since "neither Douglas nor Bell held out any 
hope for a slave state," the majority for them proved that "the South 

14 Mary Scrugham, The Peaceable Americans of 1860-1861 (New York: The Columbia 
University Press, 1921), 11, hereinafter cited as Scrugham, Peaceable Americans; 
Chauncey S. Boucher "In Re That Aggressive Slavocracy," The Mississippi Valley His- 
torical Review, VIII (June-September, 1921), 75, hereinafter cited as Boucher, "Ag- 
gressive Slavocracy." 

76 The North Carolina Historical Review 

preferred the Union without Slavery eventually to slavery without 
the Union." 15 

The aftermath of the election presented Scrugham and Boucher 
with some difficulties. Yet they refrained from using a "conspiracy" 
to explain secession and admitted that southern unionism disinte- 
grated or became ineffectual in 1861. To Boucher, the period im- 
mediately following the election revealed the strongest southern 
unionism in a decade. Only South Carolina clearly intended to secede, 
and even South Carolinians remained unsure of support from their 
fellow southerners. The popular wish for definite action and for a 
relief of tension forced South Carolina to secede. Given this example, 
disunionists turned six other states to secession, producing an ac- 
complished fact to which most Unionists became quickly reconciled. 16 

Scrugham, however, found in secession no clear reversal of the 
South's predominant unionism. Admitting that secession had been 
thought of for years and that it was not the work of "hot-headed 
school boys [acting] on the spur of the moment," she still saw no 
basic, determining antagonism between the North and the South. 
In seceding, southern leaders backed neither disunion nor war. They 
merely tried to repudiate sectional dominance by wrecking the Re- 
publican party. They tested that party with the Crittenden compro- 
mise. And when the Republicans rejected compromise, six states left 
the Union. Eight states, representing a majority of the southern 
people, waited for an overt act of northern aggression. Lincoln's call 
for troops provided this act and united the South. 17 

During the next twenty-five years other historians adopted much 
of Scrugham's concern for southern unionism and gave more detailed 
analyses of the secession movement. Considering secession and war 
"a bawdy farce," or the work of an extremist "cabal," or a sign of the 
breakdown of statesmanship and of democracy, most with varying 
intensity condemned secession. But southerner Charles Ramsdell 
contended that southerners were defending themselves against "a 
hostile sectional majority," and northerner Dwight L. Dumond 
thought that interested and reasonable southerners logically followed 

15 Boucher, "Aggressive Slavocracy," 77-78; Scrugham, Peaceable Americans, 23-24, 
40-41, 49-52. 

16 Boucher, "Aggressive Slavocracy," 78-79; Scrugham, Peaceable Americans, 39-40. 
"Scrugham, Peaceable Americans, 54-63, 103. 

Historiography of Southern Support 77 


the Breckinridge Democrats to defend their rights. 3 

All, however, emphasized the lack of unanimous public opinion 
in the South before, during, and after Lincoln's election. They also 
noted the strong feeling of certain southerners to preserve the Union. 
But, as Ollinger Crenshaw pointed out, Unionism in the South was 
not the equivalent of unionism in the North. For most southern 
unionists advocated caution and compromise to secure southern 
rights and seldom denounced secession as the last, possible course 
of action. 19 

Many of these authors offered evidence to show that most south- 
erners refused to back secession. Only 384,884 of over eight million 
southern whites owned slaves, and "only a tiny minority owned more 
than five Negroes." Few southerners, therefore, represented the 
planter class which hoped to protect slavery in secession. Since the 
majority in the South lost little or nothing if slavery were abolished, 
they hardly destroyed the Union to defend slavery. Other interests, 
according to William B. Hesseltine and David L. Smiley, served to 
strengthen southern unionism. Southern bankers with northern con- 
nections, politicians with long-standing northern alliances, merchants 
with Mississippi and Ohio River interests, and Catholics, Episco- 
palians, and Presbyterians with northern fellow churchmen all stood 
to lose in a breakup of the Union. 20 

The election of 1860 also revealed southerners backing the Union. 
Six slave states repudiated Breckinridge, the secessonist candidate. 
Douglas and Bell, the conservative Union candidates, won 48 per 
cent of the more than 850,000 southern votes. In Louisiana and in 
Georgia, conservative candidates won majorities of the total vote. 
And in all the other cotton states, except Texas, they secured 40 per 
cent or more of the vote. Bell, moreover, won Tennessee, Kentucky, 

18 Gerald W. Johnson, The Secession of the Southern States (New York: G. P. Put- 
nam's Sons, 1933), 15, 27, hereinafter cited as Johnson, Secession; George F. Milton, 
Conflict: The American Civil War (New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1941), 13, here- 
inafter cited as Milton, Conflict; Craven, Southern Nationalism, 391; Charles W. 
Ramsdell, "The Changing Interpretations of the Civil War," The Journal of Southern 
History, III (February, 1937), 4, 14, hereinafter cited as Ramsdell, "Changing Inter- 
pretations"; Frank M. Anderson, "Review of Dwight L. Dumond's Southern Editorials 
on Secession and the Secession Movement," The American Historical Review, XXXVII 
(July, 1932), 773. 

19 Craven, Southern Nationalism, 349; Ramsdell, "Changing Interpretations," 19-20; 
William E. Baringer, A House Dividing: Lincoln As President Elect (Springfield, 
Illinois: The Abraham Lincoln Association, 1945), 44; David M. Potter, Lincoln and 
His Party in the Secession Crisis (New Haven, Connecticut: The Yale University Press, 
1942), 207-214; Ollinger Crenshaw, The Slave States in the Presidential Election of 
1860 (Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1945), 299-303, hereinafter 
cited as Crenshaw, Slave States; Dumond, Southern Editorials, viii. 

20 Johnson, Secession, 34-35; Hesseltine and Smiley, The South, 271, 284. 

78 The North Carolina Historical Review 

and Virginia. Douglas won Missouri. And both together won a ma- 
jority in Maryland. Yet, as James G. Randall pointed out, the election 
only suggested that southerners opposed secession. Though anti- 
Lincoln and anti-secessionist, many of these "Unionists" agreed to 
secede after the election of Lincoln. 21 

Since most southerners did not hold slaves and thus had no interest 
in seceding to protect slavery, and since the popular vote rejected 
the advocates of secession, vigorous minorities had really carried the 
South out of the Union. Well organized and boldly led by such ex- 
tremists as Robert B. Rhett, C. C. Memminger, and William L. 
Yancey, they overrode the popular opposition or indifference to seces- 
sion. Benefiting from the unionists' disorganization, they also profited 
from the dominance of the planters and from the party machinery of 
the Breckinridge Democrats, which remained intact and operating 
after the election. Finally, they used Lincoln's election, Republican 
rejection of compromise, and Lincoln's call for troops after the firing 
on Fort Sumter to lead a succession of southern states into the Con- 
federacy. 22 

In analyzing the secession movement and the secession conven- 
tions of each southern state, modern historians again questioned the 
southern support for secession. Hesseltine and Smiley noted that dur- 
ing the secession conventions southern unionists often became co- 
operationists, advocating delay and sectional agreement rather than 
separate state action. During the hastily called conventions, they said, 
unionism was much stronger than shown in the meager votes against 
the secession ordinances. James G. Randall and Avery O. Craven, 
writing general studies and "revising" Civil War history, and certain 
state historians, writing about specific state topics and providing much 
evidence for Randall and Craven, gave state by state analyses which 
uncovered the variety of southern opinion on the eve of secession. 
Randall and Craven questioned the popular support for secession. 
Some of the state historians thought unionism strong. But others 

21 Milton, Conflict, 16; Hesseltine and Smiley, The South, 264; James G. Randall, 
Civil War and Reconstruction (Boston, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 
1953), 182, hereinafter cited as Randall, Civil War. 

22 Hesseltine and Smiley, The South, 271-272, 284; Avery 0. Craven, "Coming of the 
War Between the States: An Interpretation," The Journal of Southern History, II 
(August, 1936), 322, hereinafter cited as Craven, "War Between the States,"; Craven, 
Southern Nationalism, 390; Crenshaw, Slave States, 299-300, 303; Dumond, Southern 
Editorials, xx; Milton, Conflict, 15-17; Allan Nevins, The War for Union: The Impro- 
vised War (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2 volumes, 1959-1960), I, 10, herein- 
after cited as Nevins, War for Union; Howard K. Beale, "What Historians Have Said 
About the Causes of the Civil War," Theory and Practice in Historical Study: A Re- 
port of the Committee on Historiography (New York: Social Science Research Council, 
Bulletin Number 54, 1946), 81, hereinafter cited as Beale, "Causes of the Civil War." 

Historiography of Southern Support 79 

found that the people generally backed secession. In And The War 
Came in 1950, for example, Kenneth Stampp maintained that in the 
cotton states leading politicians, state convention delegates, and 
national representatives used propaganda to advertise secession but 
nonetheless represented the majority of their constituents in opposing 
compromise and in supporting separation from the Union. 23 

None, however, disputed that majorities for secession existed in 
Texas and in South Carolina. In Texas, where the farming West, 
angered by the federal government's failure to stop Indian raids, 
joined the planting East in secession, the people approved the ordi- 
nance of secession by over 31,000 votes. In South Carolina, Laura 
White, the biographer of Robert B. Rhett, found secessionists repre- 
senting a minority and most citizens opposing secession, especially 
conservative merchants in Charleston and farmers in the back coun- 
try. Yet she finally agreed with the other historians: After the election 
of Lincoln South Carolinians, wary of a northern threat to slavery 
and to their economy, became determined to lead secession. 24 

Historians offered differing interpretations of secession in the rest 
of the Lower South. In Georgia, where strong and well-led unionism 
persisted, the convention narrowly defeated a co-operationist attempt 
for delay. In Mississippi, where in the convention election the popular 
vote was 40 per cent less than the vote in the presidential election 
and co-operationists nearly won, few advocated outright secession 
and unionists maintained a noticeable minority. And Florida had one- 
third of the state convention and an estimated 36 to 43 per cent of 
popular opinion for co-operation. But state rights advocates and 
Stephens' co-operationists in Georgia, partisan editors and petty law- 
yers in Mississippi, and secessionist radicals in control of patronage 
and propaganda in Florida finally supported secession and forced 
their states out of the Union. And as William W. Davis said in his 
study of Florida, no serious, organized opposition to secession ever 
developed. In Florida, only one legislator opposed the call for the 

^Hesseltine and Smiley, The South, 273-274; Nevins, War for Union, I, 12; Kenneth 
M. Stampp, And the War Came (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 
1950), 2, 133, 137. Specific citations of Randall, Craven, and the state historians appear 
in the notes for the following text. 

24 Charles W. Ramsdell, "The Frontier and Secession," Studies in Southern History 
and Politics, Inscribed to William Archibald Dunning (New York: Columbia University 
Press, 1914), 63-79; Laura A. White, Robert Barnwell Rhett: Father of Secession 
(New York: The Century Company, 1931), 167, 171, 177, 181; Randall, Civil War, 183; 
Charles E. Cauthen, "South Carolina's Decision To Lead the Secession Movement," 
The North Carolina Historical Review, XVIII (October, 1941), 372; Harold S. Schultz, 
Nationalism and Sectionalism in South Carolina, 1852-1860: A Study of the Movement 
for Southern Independence (Durham: Duke University Press, 1950), viii, 221; John G. 
Van Deusen, Economic Bases of Disunion in South Carolina (New York: Columbia 
University Press, 1928), 330. 

80 The North Carolina Historical Review 

secession convention, and only seven convention delegates voted 
against the ordinance of secession. 25 

Other historians described "vigorous minorities" which opposed 
secession in Alabama. Representing Alabama's northern counties and 
urging delay for a convention which represented the whole South, 
this minority never exhibited its full strength in the light, close vote 
for the state convention. In the end, however, Alabama conservatives 
succumbed to an "emotional tide" for secession. 26 

Lewy Dorman and Clarence P. Denman discounted unionism as a 
force against Alabama's secession. To Dorman, the nationally or- 
ganized Democratic party had always opposed and blocked Alabama 
secessionists. With Democrats divided after 1860, he said, secession- 
ists faced no organized opposition and easily enacted their "lawyers' 
revolution." Denman, on the other hand, considered secession a popu- 
lar movement in Alabama. According to Denman, such prominent 
secessionists as William L. Yancey had many "able lieutenants," who 
in the last phase of the movement acted as the spokesmen rather than 
the leaders of the people. Despite the divided strength of the union- 
ists in northern Alabama and the comparatively small vote for the 
state convention, Denman said, both the popular majority in the 
convention election and the representation in the convention ac- 
curately reflected the people's support for secession. 27 

According to Randall and Craven, a large unionist minority in 
Louisiana, defeated by just over 3,000 votes in the election for the 
state convention, reluctantly signed a hastily drawn ordinance of 
secession and "bowed to what was called 'the will of the majority." 
Roger Shugg was more emphatic in denying that the majority in 
Louisiana backed secession. In his view, a slaveholding minority used 

25 Randall, Civil War, 186, 189; Ulrich B. Phillips, Georgia and States Rights: A 
Study of the Political History of Georgia (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 
Office, 1902), 196-198; Craven, Southern Nationalism, 364, 368-369; Percy L. Rain- 
water, Mississippi, Storm Center of Secession, 1856-1861 (Baton Rouge, Louisiana: 
Otto Claitor, 1938), 218-224; Dorothy Dodd, "The Secession Movement in Florida, 
1850-1861," The Quarterly Periodical of The Florida Historical Society, XII (July, 
1933), 53-62, 65; William W. Davis, The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida (New 
York: Columbia University Press, 1913), 47-68. 

28 See, for example, Randall, Civil War, 187 ; Craven, Southern Nationalism, 366-367. 

27 Clarence P. Denman, The Secession Movement in Alabama (Montgomery, Alabama: 
Alabama State Department of Archives and History, 1933), vi-viii, 87-91, 115-117, 122, 
153, hereinafter cited as Denman, Alabama; Austin L. Venable, The Role of William 
L. Yancey in the Secession Movement (Nashville, Tennessee: The Joint University 
Libraries, 1945), 33; Lewy Dorman, Party Politics in Alabama From 1850 Through 
1860 (Wetumpka, Alabama: Wetumpka Printing Company, 1935), 172-173. 

Historiography of Southern Support 81 

the traditional powers of their planter oligarchy and overcame a 
majority who were opposed or indifferent to secession. 28 

Willie M. Caskey and James K. Greer, however, felt that most 
Louisianians backed secession. Caskey minimized the importance of 
the large Bell-Douglas vote of New Orleans and eastern Louisiana in 
the presidential election. Though this majority was often cited as 
proof of the predominant unionism of Louisiana, Caskey said that 
in the election of 1860 secession was not actually a question. Many 
of the so-called unionists, who voted for Bell or Douglas, quickly 
accepted secession (just as Bell himself did) after the failure of 
the Crittenden compromise. In the vote for the state convention, 
moreover, New Orleans registered a 397 majority for immediate se- 
cession. And, as Greer pointed out, in the state convention secessionists 
outnumbered co-operationists two to one, and only 19 of 48 parishes 
elected co-operationist candidates. 29 

Between the election of the convention and the gathering of the 
delegates, Caskey continued, Senator Judah P. Benjamin's speech 
to the United States Senate and Governor Thomas O. Moore's message 
to the state legislature, both defending southern rights and calling 
for "effective resistance," further undermined what was left of 
Louisiana unionism. When the convention seceded, the people fol- 
lowed. Louisiana unionism, largely a production of the Daily 
Picayune (New Orleans), a conservative paper with many northern 
readers, never gained strength or importance. Few unionists or co- 
operationists were willing to submit to the North without concessions, 
and most voted for secession and supported the Confederacy. 30 

In describing secession in the Upper South, historians noted much 
opposition to secession, what Randall called "a prevailing pattern of 
unionist sentiment against a background of Southernism." Virginians 
differed greatly over secession, but their vote for the state convention 
registered a unionist majority of 50,000. The voters of Arkansas 
elected a unionist majority to the state convention, which then ad- 
journed without acting on secession. In eastern Tennessee, most of 
the people favored the Union, and throughout the rest of the state, 

28 Randall, Civil War, 191; Craven, Southern Nationalism, 373, 375; Shugg's views 
are cited in Beale, "Causes of the Civil War," 64, 68, 73. See also, Roger W. Shugg, 
Origins of the Class Struggle in Louisiana: A Social History of White Farmers and 
Laborers During Slavery and After (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 
1939), 161-170. 

29 Willie M. Caskey, Secession and Restoration of Louisiana (Baton Rouge: Louisi- 
ana State University Press, 1938), 14-16, 20-25, hereinafter cited as Caskey, Louisiana; 
James K. Greer, "Louisiana Politics, 1845-1861," The Louisiana Historical Quarterly, 
XIII (July-October, 1930), 627-628, 637. 

80 Caskey, Louisiana, 27-29, 35-41. 

82 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the majority wanted to wait and to remain neutral in the crises be- 
tween the federal government and the Lower South. On February 
9, 1861, Tennesseans voted against holding a state convention. 
In North Carolina, moreover, where Breckinridge Democrats had 
been repudiated in the election of 1860, secessionists represented a 
minority and the voters defeated the first call for convention. 31 

But after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter and the Federal 
call for troops, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina 
seceded from the Union. Virginia with a chance for increased pros- 
perity as the Confederacy's largest state, Tennessee with a secessionist 
Governor and a secessionist legislature as its leaders, and North 
Carolina with seceded states as its neighbors abandoned unionism 
and opposed federal coercion. Recognizing their predominant social 
and economic ties with the Lower South, they reluctantly joined 
the Confederacy. 32 

In 1864 Zebulon B. Vance of North Carolina called secession "a 
revolution of the polite class, not the people." Earlier another North 
Carolinian, Jonathan Worth, said that "the very women and children 
are for war." Some historians agreed with Vance, others with Worth. 
Though most twentieth-century historians have approached secession 
as a fact and have spent their time describing its causes, they have 
also tried to evaluate the attitude of the southern people toward 
secession. Some historians, citing election statistics and convention 
votes, found the people "in the van" for secession. Others, citing 
similar kinds of statistics and noting the secrecy and the haste of the 
seceding conventions, felt that in secession the people had been 
thwarted or at least misrepresented. And despite the many conflicting 
interpretations, Randall, Craven, and others maintained that many 
southern unionists opposed secession. They hinted, therefore, that 
times were out of joint, that minorities were often in control, and 

31 Randall, Civil War, 245-251; Hesseltine and Smiley, The South, 279-283; Beverly 
B. Munford, Virginia's Attitude Toward Slavery and Secession (Richmond, Virginia: 
L. H. Jenkins, Edition Book Manufacturer, 1915), 10, hereinafter cited as Munford, 
Virginia's Attitude; Craven, Southern Nationalism, 382; Mary E. Campbell, Attitude 
of Tennesseans Toward Union, 184.7-1861 (New York: Vantage Press, 1961), 136-137, 
178, hereinafter cited as Campbell, Tennesseans; James W. Fertig, The Secession 
and Reconstruction of Tennessee (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 
1898), 15-23, hereinafter cited as Fertig, Tennessee; William K. Boyd, "North Carolina 
on the Eve of Secession," Annual Report of The American Historical Association for 
The Year 1910 (Washington, D. C: [American Historical Association], 1914), 172, 177. 

32 Johnson, Secession, 46; Randall, Civil War, 250-252, 254, 258; Campbell, Tennesse- 
ans, 212; Munford, Virginia's Attitude, viii, 301 ; David Y. Thomas, Arkansas in War and 
Reconstruction (Little Rock, Arkansas: Arkansas Division, United Daughters of the 
Confederacy, 1926), 83; Hesseltine and Smiley, The South, 282-283; James W. Patton, 
Unionism and Reconstruction in Tennessee, 1880-1869 (Chapel Hill: The University 
of North Carolina Press, 1934), 6-7; Fertig, Tennessee, 22. 

Historiography of Southern Support 83 

that given time and compromise unionists might have rebelled 
"against the rebellion." 33 

State dissatisfaction, which during the war often resulted in de- 
fiance of the Confederacy, apparently substantiated the view that 
secession failed to represent the popular will. Yet the Confederate 
administration of the war rather than the popular love for the Union 
engendered most of the Confederacy's internal problems. In North 
Carolina, for example, where Confederate taxes and troop quotas 
raised a public uproar, few openly followed ex- Whig John Pool in 
opposing secession and in refusing to co-operate with the Confederate 
government. Even William Woods Holden, the leader of North 
Carolina's "peace" movement during the war, had signed his state's 
ordinance of secession, calling the act the greatest of his life. 34 

Each generation of historians aided in explaining secession. If 
early writers promulgated the conspiracy thesis and exhibited a parti- 
san bias, they at least set down the chronology and the process of 
secession. The national historians— Von Hoist, Schouler, and Rhodes- 
gave up the partisan viewpoint and refuted the conspiracy interpreta- 
tion. And later historians, writing in the twentieth century and offer- 
ing differing and often conflicting interpretations of secession, de- 
scribed the variety in southern opinion and noted the existence of 
southern unionism. Yet they seldom gave sufficient attention to the 
specific economic aspects of the South's withdrawal from the Union. 

Though Hesseltine and Smiley and Shugg described the economic 
forces surrounding the movement, other historians presented little 
detailed analysis of the local, class, and economic interests behind 
secession. To make this analysis, historians had to overcome numerous 
difficulties. In studying Alabama, for example, Denman came across 
some of these. He had difficulty determining the backgrounds and view- 

"Zebulon B. Vance to David L. Swain, September 22, 1864, as quoted in Hope S. 
Chamberlain, Old Days in Chapel Hill, Being the Life and Letters of Cornelia Phillips 
Spencer (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1926), 105; Jonathan 
Worth to Gaius Winningham, May 20, 1861, J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton (ed.), 
The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth (Raleigh: The North Carolina Historical Com- 
mission [State Department of Archives and History], 2 volumes, 1909), I, 149, as 
quoted in Craven, "War Between the States," 322. Richard N. Current noted that 
Seward believed "Southerners would rebel against the rebellion." See Richard N. Cur- 
rent, "The Confederates and the First Shot," Civil War History, VII (December, 1961), 
359. According to David M. Potter, both Seward and Lincoln counted on the resur- 
gence of Southern Unionism after secession. See David M. Potter, Lincoln and His Party 
in the Secession Crisis (New Haven, Connecticut: The Yale University Press, 1942), 

34 Edward McCrady, Jr., and Samuel A. Ashe, Cyclopedia of Eminent and Repre- 
sentative Men of the Carolinas of the Nineteenth Century (Madison, Wisconsin: 
Brant and Fuller, 2 volumes, 1892), II, 315; William K. Boyd, "William W. Holden," 
An Annual Publication of Historical Papers: Published By the Historical Society of 
Trinity College , Durham, North Carolina, III (1899), 66. 

84 The North Carolina Historical Review 

points of Alabama's convention delegates. In some instances, unionist 
delegates represented the secessionist South, and secessionists repre- 
sented certain parts of the unionist North. Other delegates had vague 
or completely indeterminable backgrounds. But without such infor- 
mation, few can properly understand the popular feeling about 

Perhaps in some parts of the South the people backed secession, 
while in others they opposed it. Perhaps most southerners went on 
"eating and drinking and making merry, marrying, and giving in 
marriage" and disregarded the crisis at hand. "Minorities" have also 
been credited with the work of secession. But in fact this fails to make 
the movement unique in American politics. Politicians, journalists, 
and the spokesmen of various interests have always been minorities 
in human society. And in American history, many decisions have 
been reached without the approval or the disapproval of the people. 
Thomas R. R. Cobb, therefore, in refusing "to wait to hear from the 
cross-roads and the groceries" of South Carolina, pronounced no new, 
conspiratorial, or undemocratic doctrine. In secession, the agents of 
the states acted through traditional institutions, the state legislatures 
and the state conventions. If secession had been voted down, a 
minority would still have reached the decision. 36 

Many historians yet feel required to pronounce on secession and 
the popular will, a supposed article of democratic faith. Though the 
question of the southern support for secession begs a final, single 
answer, it affects and reflects interpretations of the Civil War and of 
southern society. But unaided by some criteria for sampling the whole 
of public opinion— such as opinion polls—historians should leave "the 
people" out of their arguments. And whether or not the South fol- 
lowed or opposed their leaders' leaving the Union, historians still 
find that the problem of secession— as in James Russell Lowell's com- 
ment on slavery— remains secession itself. 37 

^Denman, Alabama, 110. 

80 Daily Chronicle and Sentinel (Augusta, Georgia), October 2, 1860, as quoted in 
Craven, Southern Nationalism, 350. For T. R. R. Cobb's remark, see also Craven, 
Southern Nationalism, 370. 

87 James Russell Lowell said "that the difficulty of the slavery question is slavery 
itself — nothing more, nothing less." See (James Russell Lowell), "The Question of the 
Hour," The Atlantic Monthly, VII (January, 1861), 121, as quoted in Kenneth M. 
Stampp, "The Historian and Southern Negro Slavery," The American Historical 
Review, LVII (April, 1952), 624. 


By John V. Allcott * 

Through the early 1850's North Carolina's statesman, William 
Alexander Graham, and his wife were concerned with the improve- 
ment of the house and garden of their country estate, "Montrose," at 
Hillsboro. This was after Graham had been Governor of the state and 
during the time he was Secretary of the Navy under President 
Millard Fillmore, a service which interrupted the work at "Montrose." 
Elegant plans for enlarging the house were prepared by the dis- 
tinguished American architect, Alexander Jackson Davis, of New 
York. The plans were attractive to the Grahams, but they seemed 
perhaps too elaborate or grand in appearance and contained bother- 
some construction problems. Governor Graham finally gave them up 
in favor of a simple, direct, and characteristically North Carolina 

The present house on the site of "Montrose" is not the one enlarged 
by Governor Graham; his home was destroyed by fire. But drawings 
and letters allow one to see and to know the architectural develop- 
ments at "Montrose" in the 1850's. The story of the developments 
illuminates the natures of the two men, Graham and Davis. One sees 
how Graham dealt with a difficult problem close to his heart; and 
Davis' tactics in dealing with a distinguished and, therefore, a de- 
sirable client can be observed. The story also brings out the taste of 
the fashionable New York architect and of the southern client with 
strong ties to the architectural customs of his region. 

Present-day owners of the property, located near Hillsboro, are 
Mr. Alexander Hawkins Graham, grandson of Governor Graham, and 
his wife. Facing the road to Hillsboro is a formal garden with sym- 
metrical, winding roads. (The garden in the 1850's was the special 
project of the Governor's wife, Susan.) Beyond the garden is the 
main house built over the foundations of earlier houses on the 

* Mr. Allcott is Professor of Art, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

86 The North Carolina Historical Review 

fSf % 


Jtt i ' f 

The original "Montrose" was sketched by Alexander Jackson Davis. From plan and 
perspective sketch in the A. J. Davis Collection II, Avery Library, Columbia Uni- 
versity, New York. 

property. Behind the main house is the original office of Governor 
Graham. 1 There were undoubtedly barns and other outbuildings. 

"Montrose" was not the first home of the William Alexander 
Grahams in Hillsboro. After their marriage in 1836, they lived in 
rented quarters; when Susan Graham visited her parents in New 
Bern, Graham stayed in rented quarters or at the hotel in Hillsboro. 2 
In January, 1838, Graham bought a small house. "I should not expect 
to keep it," he wrote to his wife, "but it may serve our present pur- 
poses." 3 "Montrose" was purchased four years later, in November, 

1 This and other information on the history of "Montrose" is from interviews of the 
author with, and letters received from, Mrs. A. H. Graham of Hillsboro, from 1960 to 
May, 1964, and are hereinafter cited as Notes from Mrs. Graham. 

2 These various arrangements are suggested by remarks in a number of letters, 
around 1837, between Graham and his wife. These letters are found in the W. A. 
Graham Papers, State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh, hereinafter cited 
as Graham Papers, Raleigh; and W. A. Graham Papers, Southern Historical Collec- 
tion, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, hereinafter cited as Graham Papers, 

"Graham to his wife, December 30, 1837, and January 9, 1838, Graham Papers, 

Architectural Developments at "Montrose" 87 

1842, when Graham was in the United States Senate. The complicated 
purchase from John U. Kirkland involved a cash payment and the 
trade of Graham's residence and three lots in Hillsboro. 4 

The house which then stood on the property was sketched by Davis 
when he visited "Montrose." The house was a small, two-story struc- 
ture with elegant detail; the simple plan is one that was popular in 
North Carolina in the early nineteenth century. There were two rooms 
downstairs with a wide hall at one side containing entrance doors and 
a stairway to the second floor. 5 

Graham called this place "Montrose," after his ancestor James 
Graham, Duke, Marquis, and Earl of Montrose of Scotland. 6 Governor 
Graham and his family needed a larger house by 1850; and he wanted 
a beautiful one. 7 It was natural that, in selecting an architect, he 
would think of Alexander Jackson Davis, for Davis had been very ac- 
tive in North Carolina. He had dignified the campus of the University 
at Chapel Hill by adding imposing facades to Old East and Old West 
buildings, and he had designed a striking home in Greensboro for 
Graham's friend, Governor John M. Morehead. In 1850 Davis was 
planning two important North Carolina buildings, Smith Hall (now 
the Playmakers Theater) at the University, and the State Hospital 
for the Insane in Raleigh. Governor Graham was familiar with these 
buildings and, as a member of the Executive Committee of the 
University's Board of Trustees in charge of buildings on the campus, 
he knew something of Davis as a person. 8 

As Davis visited North Carolina during the year 1850 on work for 
the state, Governor Graham hoped to have him come to Hillsboro to 
study the existing house at "Montrose" and to plan its enlargement. 
Graham's friends, Governor Morehead and President David L. Swain 
of the University, were to arrange the visit. During a May, 1850, 
trip to North Carolina, Davis found himself unable to go to Hillsboro. 
"He says he is under pressure to get to other points," explained Presi- 

* Graham items for November 21, 1942, in 1841-1844 day book, John U. Kirkland 
Account Books, Southern Historical Collection; John Kirkland ledger, 1839-1845; 
Orange County Deed Books, office of Register of Deeds, Orange County Courthouse, 
Hillsboro, Deed Book XXX, 115. 

6 Frances Benjamin Johnston and Thomas Tileston Waterman, The Early Architec- 
ture of North Carolina (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1941), 

8 Notes from Mrs. Graham. 

7 Graham and his wife, who were married in 1836, had ten children. J. G. de Roulhac 
Hamilton, The Papers of William Alexander Graham (Raleigh: State Department of 
Archives and History, 4 volumes, 1957-1961), I, 126, hereinafter cited as Hamilton, 
Graham Papers. 

8 See Minutes of the Board of Trustees, University of North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill, 1845-1849, Southern Historical Collection. 

88 The North Carolina Historical Review 

dent Swain in a letter which he and Governor Morehead wrote to 
Graham. 9 But Davis did visit Hillsboro during a second trip to North 
Carolina in the fall of that year; and doubtless with keen interest, for 
that summer Governor Graham had been "surprised" 10 by his ap- 
pointment to serve as Secretary of the United States Navy. 

On November 10 Davis made a strenuous night trip from Raleigh 
to Hillsboro "arriving at 2 a.m. Went up to Graham's to breakfast, and 
remained until 4 p.m." n Governor Graham was in Washington at this 
time, but Davis talked with Mrs. Graham, who gave him her sugges- 
tions for the addition. 12 It is possible that the suggestions of Susan 
Graham reverberated pleasantly in Davis' ears, sounding very much 
like his own ideas, for Mrs. Graham owned a book by Davis' friend, 
A. J. Downing, Cottage Residences . . . and their Gardens and 
Grounds, a book whose text and architectural designs included con- 
tributions by Davis. 13 

During his day at "Montrose," Davis must have made pencil 
sketches of the existing house. The drawings were expertly done 
freehand sketches which convey essential information about the de- 
sign and structure of the house. 14 

After returning to New York, Davis undertook a "Study for Gov. 
W. A. Graham," and on February 4, 1851, "sent him a plan, 1st floor, 
2nd floor, and little view perspective," as is recorded in Davis' day- 
book. 15 The proposal for the enlargement of "Montrose" was very 
carefully laid out on a horizontal rectangle of paper. A large plan 
for the first floor was on the left, and a smaller plan for the second 
floor was shown on the right. At top right were two perspective views, 
and at lower right was a carefully blocked-out explanation in Davis' 
beautiful and studied hand, signed "Alex. J. Davis, 93 Exchange, 
N. Y." 

In the plan of the first floor the "Additions are in color"— a dazzling 
vermillion in the original drawing; "old part in outline." The addition 
was a massive and grand affair. "Dining-rm, Hall, Parlor" were laid 

8 Swain and Morehead to Graham, May 15, 1850, Graham Papers, University. 

10 Graham to his brother James, July 19, 1850, Graham Papers, University. 

11 Daybook of A. J. Davis, November 10, 1850, A. J. Davis Collection, New York 
Public Library, New York, hereinafter cited as Davis Collection, New York Public 

12 Graham to Davis, May 11, 1853, Graham Papers, University. 

18 A 1847 edition of this book inscribed "Mrs. W. A. Graham," is in the library at 
"Montrose," Hillsboro. 

14 Drawings of "Montrose," A. J. Davis Collection II, Avery Library, Columbia Uni- 
versity, New York, hereinafter cited as Davis Collection, Columbia University. 

15 Daybook of A. J. Davis, February 4, 1851, Davis Collection, New York Public 

Architectural Developments at "Montrose" 


1 i i i-rf. :■'» ■ i 


The plan for the enlargement of the first floor of "Montrose" was prepared by- 
Alexander Jackson Davis. Photograph from files of Mr. and Mrs. A. H. Graham, 

out in formal symmetry at front. A door from the dining room, through 
a "lobby," led to the porch and probably to an outside kitchen. Back 
of the dining room was a "Bath-room"; a porch, called "Umbrage/' 
surrounded the old house on three sides. At the right was an octagonal 
"Library." 16 A library was appropriate, for Governor Graham was a 

18 Plans and perspective sketch, Library of Mr. and Mrs. A. H. Graham, "Montrose," 
Hillsboro, hereinafter cited as Plan and perspective, sketch, Graham Library. A study 
for these plans, with details not completed, exists in Davis' Collection, Columbia 

90 The North Carolina Historical Review 

scholar of North Carolina history; indeed, in 1852 he delivered a lec- 
ture on "The British Invasion of North Carolina, 1780," before the 
Historical Society of New York. 17 

The two perspective sketches are typical of Davis' best work and 
are the most fascinating part of the proposal. They are two charming 
water color drawings by means of which the architect delicately pre- 
sents the Victorian question— the choice which a cultivated man must 
make between two equally modish styles— Old English and Italian. 
"The Italian version is more simple, in that the library part is but 
one story high," 18 and is conceived as an enclosed porch. Davis felt 
that the library portion could be reduced, but "the great tower, how- 
ever, should project its full diameter." 19 A great tower, appearing in 
both versions of the house, was important to Davis; how the Grahams 
regarded it will be learned later. 

The two sketches were much like other villas which Davis de- 
signed during this time. The Italian version is curiously similar to the 
addition which Davis designed in the 1840's for the home of Governor 
Morehead in Greensboro. 

The proposal was sent "to Mrs. Graham at Washington." 20 The 
reader may be puzzled by Davis' notation in his daybook that he sent 
the drawings to "him,"— Governor Graham; that is, he sent the plan 
to "him" by way of Graham's wife. This would have been a logical 
thing to do, for the Secretary of the Navy was a busy man, and Davis 
had talked with Mrs. Graham at "Montrose." "Mrs. Graham and my 
self were pleased with it," Governor Graham wrote to Davis later. 
Perhaps Mrs. Graham was especially pleased because, as Governor 
Graham noted in another letter to Davis, the plan "corresponded to 
suggestions of her own . . . when you visited . . ." "Montrose." 22 

Action on the plan, of course, had to wait. Governor Graham's pri- 
mary architectural problem was buying a house in Washington; in 
April, 1851, he succeeded. He purchased a house 

built by Mr. Rush, of Philadelphia, while Secretary of the treasury, . . . 
the plan from a French model which obtained a premium from Napoleon 
. . . who advertised a reward for the best plan of a House 44 by 38, which 
should combine the most of domestic comfort with Architectural beauty. 23 


17 Hamilton, Graham Papers I, 23-24. 

M Plan and perspective sketch, Graham Library. 

10 Plan and perspective sketch, Graham Library. 

20 Graham to Davis, May 11, 1853, Graham Papers, University. 

21 Graham to Davis, July 3, 1854, Davis Collection, New York Public Library. 
23 Graham to Davis, May 11, 1853, Graham Papers, University. 

28 Graham to his brother James, April 14, 1851, Graham Papers, University. 

Architectural Developments at "Montrose" 91 

The house had a stable, various other outbuildings, and a small gar- 
den with fruit trees, all for $8,000. 24 

In Washington, Governor Graham's eyes must have been sharpened 
to architectural problems; President Fillmore asked him to study new 
plans for the enlargement of the Capitol. 25 

The period of Washington service ended in 1852, when Governor 
Graham was nominated for the office of Vice-President, and his party 
lost the election. This meant that the Grahams were able to return 
to their work on "Montrose." During the campaign in the summer 
and fall of 1852, the Grahams were already at work in North Carolina. 

Gardens came first. On November 4 Governor Graham wrote to 
President Swain at the University, "Mrs. Graham and myself are 
examining our grounds with a view to some improvements, and will 
be greatly obliged to you to request the gardner at Chapel Hill to 
make us a visit for consultation. We may be able to furnish him some 
employment in the line of his profession if he shall feel at liberty to 
undertake." 26 

It was natural that the Grahams would seek the University gar- 
dener, because for some years the University had been much interested 
in the improvement of its grounds and had thought about the teach- 
ing of gardening and agricultural science. The gardener at the Uni- 
versity during this time was Thomas Paxton, an Englishman thought 
to have been related to the famous English gardener, Joseph Paxton, 
who designed the Crystal Palace in London. 27 

Thomas Paxton worked at "Montrose" several times, as one learns 
in a charming letter written by Susan Graham. Writing to President 
Swain on March 21, 1853, she said: 

Will you think me very unreasonable if I crave permission for Mr. 
Paxton to remain another week? Much of his time has been taken up in 
"rough work" and another week for "finishing off" would make such an 
alteration in the present appearance of things that I must beg the indul- 
gence, providing it will not interfere with your arrangements. Mr. Paxton 
is willing to remain with your approbation and thinks that his business on 
the Hill will not suffer from his absence at this time. . . . When Mr. Paxton 
was here in the winter, I paid him $1.60 per day, the amount which, 
according to his statement, he receives from the Faculty. I understood 
you to say that he could work for me in Hillsboro upon the same terms. 28 

24 Graham to his brother James, April 14, 1851, Graham Papers, University. 
85 Millard Fillmore to Graham, April 29, 1851, Graham Papers, Raleigh. 
28 Graham to Swain, November 4, 1852, D. L. Swain Papers, State Department of 
Archives and History, hereinafter cited as Swain Papers. 

27 Swain to Davis, January 3, 1853, Davis Collection, New York Public Library. 

28 Susan Graham to Swain, March 21, 1853, Swain Papers. The 1853 date on this 
letter may be read as 1855, but the contents of the letter suggest 1853 as the probable 

92 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Mrs. Graham's reading doubtless influenced her plans for the 
gardens. The book which she owned by A. J. Downing contained 
much information on the design and culture of gardens. And since 
1839 she had owned a copy of the popular treatise, The Young 
Gardeners Assistant, by Thomas Bridgeman, purchased in Raleigh 
for her by her husband. 29 It is believed that during these years the 
"Montrose" garden took form with the many unusual plantings which 
later made it well known. 30 

In the winter and spring of 1853 the Grahams turned to the post- 
poned problem of the addition to their home. In studying Davis' 
proposal they found that it contained many problems. Tormented, 
Governor Graham discussed these problems in a letter to Davis— a 
remarkable letter, unfinished and unsent, preserved on a tattered 
sheet of paper at the University of North Carolina. "Within a few 
months past we have taken up the subject again," wrote Governor 
Graham, "and have submitted your drawings to Mr. Conrad . . . and 
Mr. Williams," two Raleigh builders. "Williams," he continued, 
"seems at a loss as to the mode of joining the roof of the new to that 
of the old house on your plan, and both seemed desirous to have 
working drawings." The Raleigh builders thought the Davis design 
would be costly to build, and Graham asked Davis about this. 

He expressed another doubt about the Davis design. "We do not 
wish the tower as part of the improvement . . . and in consideration 
of the exceeding plainness of the buildings of our town, we have 
thought of abandoning this plan . . ." and of proceeding with a 
simpler idea. He explained the advantages of this simpler plan, 
which "would require no change in the roof . . . and the house could 
be inhabited in comfort during the progress of the work, and would 
be less expensive ... by at least $1,000 than the plan now before me, 
and I therefore am inclined to prefer it." 31 

At this point the letter stops. Having "talked" to Davis, he decided 
himself what to do. He contracted with Conrad to supervise the con- 
struction, and by October 6, had already paid him $500 for services 
to that date. 32 

The design of the addition which Governor Graham made to 
"Montrose" was based on ideas which Graham expressed in the above- 
quoted draft letter to Davis: 

29 Mentioned in a letter from Graham to his wife, February 9, 1839, Graham Papers, 
Raleigh. This reference book with quaint Victorian title went through many editions 
between 1832 and the 1860's. 

80 Notes from Mrs. Graham. 

31 Graham to Davis, May 11, 1853, Graham Papers, University. 

82 Receipt from Conrad to Graham, October 6, 1853, Graham Papers, University. 

Architectural Developments at "Montrose" 93 

Have a portico or verandah in front . . . extend the house west of the 
passage or hall. . . . The addition of a room at south, or rear of the present 
house, a nursery. . . . Would be less expensive even if the nursery room in 
the rear be raised two stories with a porch extending to the western side 
on the residue of the south side of the house. . . . 33 

That Governor Graham actually built according to the above inten- 
tions seems substantiated by a later passing reference which he made 
to the enlargements as "adding across the hall on the West side, with 
verandahs, etc." 34 The description is understood to mean that the 
Grahams added a bay beyond the hall on the west, verandahs on 
front and back, and the nursery on the back. 

With the additions as enumerated by Graham, the house became 
a "typical North Carolina farmhouse," friendly, simple, comfortable. 35 

Work on the house seemed slow to Mrs. Graham, who was at home 
while her husband was frequently away on business. In July, 1853, 
as she sat watching the workmen doing advance work for the prepara- 
tion of lumber for the house, she wrote to her husband, "Clark and 
Jim . . . they are very slow . . . there is but poor prospect of having 
the house completed before next summer." 36 

She was right. A year later, June 1, 1854, Conrad wrote to Graham 
from Raleigh, "I am fully aware of the difficulty in doing your 
plastering as being just what you say it is, and have told Mr. McKnight 
what to do. He will also have the leak in the roof stopped. I will be 
in Hillsboro soon and will call, though I am satisfied that all will be 
right without me." 37 

By July the work was "nearly completed," 38 and Graham remem- 
bered that he had never written to Davis about the plan which Davis 
had so carefully prepared for him. He wrote: 

You were kind enough to visit Hillsboro , at my request, and afterwards 
to furnish a plan and drawings of a proposed addition to my dwelling 
house. Mrs. Graham and myself were pleased with it, but upon our return 
home again from Washington, thought we could make a more comfortable 
house by adding across the hall on the West side, with verandahs, etc. The 
work is nearly completed . . . and I am reminded that you have 

33 Graham to Davis, May 11, 1853, Graham Papers, University. 
84 Graham to Davis, July 3, 1854, Davis Collection, New York Public Library. 
35 This plan-idea is discussed in John V. Allcott, Colonial Homes in North Carolina 
(Raleigh: The Carolina Charter Tercentenary Commission, 1963), 60-64. 

86 Susan Graham to her husband, July 18, 1853, Graham Papers, Raleigh. 

87 Conrad to Graham, June 1, 1854, Graham Papers, University; Graham to his wife, 
January 21, 1854, Graham Papers, Raleigh. 

88 Graham to Davis, July 3, 1854, Davis Collection, New York Public Library. 

94 The North Carolina Historical Review 

received no compensation for your trouble in my behalf. I therefore beg 
that you will accept the enclosed draft for Fifty dollars. . . . 39 

Davis must have been a little sad in learning that his proposal had 
finally been discarded. He may have been disappointed as an archi- 
tect; however, as a literary man, he was stimulated to write a high- 
spirited reply which is fully as remarkable as the letter which Gov- 
ernor Graham drafted but did not send to him. He took a sheet of 
the special note paper with a headpiece showing one of his larger 
English-style homes, and wrote: 

Your check exceeds the amount of any claim I had against you, my having 
visited Hillsboro' at the suggestion of President Swain and Governor 
Morehead, . . . tho' I cannot applaud those most worthy friends of mine 
for having selected me. 

After warming himself up along this line he continued with an ultra- 
Victorian essay on country villas: 

The wisest and best of men have ever received the purest and most un- 
mixed happiness in their rural homes. . . . "From simplest sources purest 
pleasure flows, ,, sings the great poet of Rome, Lucretius, and therefore 
are you to be congratulated upon your return to your peaceful grove at 
Hillsboro', and I shall esteem myself complimented if I can assist you in 
the smallest matter to make it beautiful, so that Mrs. Graham may from 
her heart exclaim with Catullus on his return to his beloved Sirmio, "0 
best of all the scattered spots that lie in Sea or Lake. . . ." 40 

His words, "If I can assist you," referred to his desire to purchase 
such items as furniture and oil paintings for the Grahams as he had 
earlier done for Governor Morehead and President Swain. 

When Davis' letter arrived the house was still not finished. The 
leaking roof had not been fixed. The following spring, on April 1, 
1855, Governor Graham had to mention the roof in a promissory 
note to his contractors, Conrad and Williams, "One day after date 
I promise to pay Conrad and Williams $1,256.04 for work on the 
house, they are however to make the roof a good one one, as to prevent 
leakage." Four days later the note was paid; presumably the roof 
was fixed. 41 

All through the last year there had been various payments to the 

38 Graham to Davis, July 3, 1854, Davis Collection, New York Public Library. 

40 Davis to Graham, July 15, 1854, Graham Papers, University. 

41 Promissory note from Graham to Conrad and Williams, April 1, 1855, Graham 
Papers, University. 

Architectural Developments at "Montrose" 95 

contractors, and payments continued into the fall. 42 By this time, fall 
1855, one may guess that the addition was finished— five years after 
it was started. 

The subsequent history of "Montrose" is a tragic one. In 1862 the 
home was destroyed by fire. At this time the War Between the States 
was in progress; Governor Graham was serving in the State Senate; 
he could not rebuild. Instead he bought the William Hooper house 
in Hillsboro, and the "Montrose" site lay idle. Governor Graham's 
office, located far enough away from the house to escape fire, was 
spared; it remains today. In 1874 Major John Washington Graham, 
son of Governor Graham, built a larger house on the original "Mont- 
rose" foundations, but in 1893 this house, too, was destroyed by fire. 
Major Graham then built the present house a few years later. His son, 
A. H. Graham, and his wife remodeled the house in 1948; Mrs. Graham 
developed and enhanced the garden greatly.' 


43 Various receipts from Conrad and from Conrad and Williams to Graham, 1854 
and 1855, Graham Papers, University. 
43 Notes from Mrs. Graham. 


Higher Education in North Carolina Before 1860. By William Earle Drake. 
(New York: Carlton Press. 1964. Notes, bibliography. Pp. vi, 283, $5.00.) 

/ In 1930 the Department of Education at the University of North 
Carolina accepted a doctoral dissertation by William Earle Drake 
entitled "Higher Education in North Carolina Before 1860/' It was 
in large measure a history of the University with extended sections on 
the administration of the young institution. To a much lesser extent 
there was information on Davidson College, Wake Forest College, 
Trinity College, and several institutions which have not sur- 
vived. "Denominationalism" figured in the establishment and opera- 
tion of these colleges and this subject was explored in some detail. A 
chapter on "The Curriculum" was based almost entirely on records of 
the University in Chapel Hill with only an occasional reference to 
Davidson or Trinity. "Collegiate Interests" and "Manners and Morals" 
were discussed from a slightly wider range of sources and provided 
by far the most interesting reading in the dissertation. A chapter on 
higher education of women consisted of little more than a catalog of 

This 1930 dissertation has now been published with hardly a word 
changed. None of the typical dissertation paraphernalia has been 
removed. There are summaries at the appropriate places and refer- 
ences to earlier chapters where they should occur. The bibliography 
has not been brought up to date. No notice is taken of post-1930 
changes in names of institutions. The prefatory acknowledgments 
would lead the unsuspecting reader to believe that many helpful 
librarians and historians, long since dead, are still active. A study such 
as this begs for an index but the author provided none. 

Still this is better than nothing. Many scholars since 1930 have been 
indebted to Dr. Drake for his pioneering work, but many more will 
regret that he did not see fit to do a bit of revising to take advantage 
of source material which has become available since 1930 and of 
secondary works published in the meantime. 

The book appears in an attractive enough format, but its pages are 

Book Reviews 97 

marred by a number of typographical errors which any moderately 
good proofreader should have caught. 

William S. Powell 
The University of North Carolina 
at Chapel Hill 

| North Carolina and the Negro. Edited by Capus M. Waynick, John C. 
Brooks, and Elsie W. Pitts. (Published by the North Carolina Mayors* 
Co-operating Committee, Raleigh. 1964. Illustrations, bibliography, in- 
dex. Pp. xvii, 309. $3.00, cloth; $2.00, paper.) 

The Negro revolution in America, conducted generally along lines 
of peaceful and legal protest, is the most exciting and most significant 
social development of today. It is, in the words of General Capus M. 
Waynick, Special Consultant to the Governor on Race Relations, 
"the greatest drama of the century/' Employing nonviolent sit-ins, 
sing-ins, and pray-ins, Negroes have taken the leadership in the 
struggle against segregation and legally-enforced injustices. And in 
North Carolina, as this book makes abundantly clear, they have re- 
ceived encouragement and assistance from public officials both on 
the state and local levels of government. The result has been a quiet 
but profound change in the state's traditional pattern of life. 

The purpose of this book is to report racial progress in 55 North 
Carolina municipalities, and to furnish guidelines from their experi- 
ences which may help other communities dealing with the problem 
of Negro discontent and the Negro petitions for first-class citizenship. 
The selected communities range from those in which the proportion 
of the Negro population is large, such as Enfield (50.8 per cent), to. 
those in which the percentage is much less, such as Mt. Airy (4.9 per 
cent), and from those with no reported demonstrations or petitions 
(Newport and Roanoke Rapids) to those with extended records of 
Negro action (Chapel Hill and Williamston ) . For each of the 55 
communities there is a factual report listing city officials, biracial 
committees, and the municipal response to Negro requests. There are, 
in addition, a review of the legal status of segregation in North Caro- 
lina, sample municipal declarations on racial equality, an extended 
bibliography of the subject, and well-chosen illustrations. 

These reports from the Mayors' Co-operating Committee have 
contemporary value in describing the continuing effort, in Governor 
Terry Sanford's words, "based on good will and fair play so imple- 

98 The North Carolina Historical Review 

merited as to improve the status of the one-fourth of our people who 
are of the Negro race." More than that, the book will become a source 
for future historians of the Negro revolution. It deserves a wide 
audience among public officials, concerned citizens, and students of 
the state's affairs. 

David L. Smiley 
Wake Forest College 

The Cape Hatteras Seashore. Photography by Bruce Roberts, text by David 
Stick. (Charlotte: McNally and Loftin. 1964. Pp. 64. $3.95, cloth; $1.95, 

There is a magic atmosphere about the sea and its shore, and there 
seems to be a special sort of that magic attached to the Outer Banks. 
If there is a man on the Banks today who has caught in words some 
of that special feeling, he is David Stick. 

There are not very many words in this little book, but they convey 
the love many people have for the Outer Banks. David Stick lets his 
own feelings for the area shine through his words, just as he did in his 
two previous full length books on the subject, The Outer Banks of 
North Carolina and Graveyard of the Atlantic. 

Bruce Roberts has caught with his camera much of the feeling for 
the sea and the sand and the wrecks of the Hatteras area. The double- 
page endpieces of a sea in anger are both beautiful and terrifying. 
Roberts is a well known photographer of Charlotte whose work has 
appeared in Life. He has done other photographic essays on North 
Carolina, and also produced a beautiful mood work on old Harpers 

Herbert O'Keef 


\J Virginia House of Burgesses, 1750-1774. By Lucille Griffith. (Northport, 
Alabama: Colonial Press. 1963. Appendixes, bibliography, notes, index. 
Pp. xii, 245. $10.00.) 

Colonial institutional history has not been much in vogue in recent 
years. The appearance, however, of a number of new and important 
titles in this area within recent months indicates a continuing interest 
in the basic institutions of Colonial America. This is quite heartening, 

: Book Reviews 99 

for much solid and useful work can still be done in this area as the 
study under review clearly demonstrates. 

The author has devoted approximately the first third of her volume 
to an account of the general political structure of Virginia at the mid- 
eighteenth century, the major political issues of the next quarter of a 
century, and the provisions and actual implementation of the colony's 
election laws. This latter topic is by far the most interesting part of 
this portion of the study. Here the author delves into such topics as 
election procedure, the extent of suffrage, and electioneering. 

Professor Griffith's early chapters, however, serve simply as an in- 
troduction to the heart of her study which is an attempt to determine 
the type of men elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in the 
quarter century before the outbreak of the American Revolution. 
The result is a series of thumbnail sketches which explore the lives 
and interests of those who served in the Burgesses from seven repre- 
sentative counties. Two of the seven counties studied are in the Tide- 
water; two are frontier counties; and three are in the general region 
of the Piedmont. In conscious imitation of the highly successful studies 
of the English Parliament by the British historians, Namier and Neale, 
the author presents interesting and at times fascinating accounts of 
the lives of the Virginia Burgesses. One not only learns of the Bur- 
gesses' economic and political interests but also many interesting 
tidbits of information that tend to make them quite human. For 
example, Burgess Samuel Duval's wife was, according to a contem- 
porary bard, one 

Whose charms the coolest breast must fire 
As brightest objects must inspire 
Like Beauty's queen a thousand Loves 
Her steps attend wher'e'er she moves. 

The conclusions which the author draws from this study of the lives 
of the Virginia Burgesses will not require a rewriting of the pre- 
revolutionary history of that colony or even of the House of Burgesses. 
Professor Griffith's account tends merely to confirm what has already 
been concluded from less substantial evidence as to the makeup of 
the Burgesses, but beyond question this work enriches and makes 
more real the story of America's oldest representative body in one of 
its most important eras. 

The reviewer regrets the necessity of pointing out the very poor 
proofreading and printing job which was done on this volume. It 

100 The North Carolina Historical Review 

tends at times to distract the reader and certainly detracts from the 

Herbert R. Paschal, Jr. 
East Carolina College 

Southern Sketches from Virginia, 1881-1901. By Orra Langhorne, edited 
by Charles E. Wynes. (Charlottesville, Virginia: The University Press 
of Virginia. 1964. Illustrations, notes, index. Pp. ix, 145. $3.75.) 

This well edited and readable little volume contains selections from 
the articles contributed by Orra Gray Langhorne to the Southern 
Workman and Hampton School Record during the period 1881-1901. 
Mrs. Langhorne (1841-1904) was a native of Rockingham County in 
the Shenandoah Valley, a region which she loved and never tired of 
visiting. Her education was exceptional for her day. Bred in a book- 
loving family, she graduated from Hollins Institute in Roanoke, Vir- 
ginia; at the age of fifty-six she pioneered in adult education by 
enrolling as a special student at Randolph-Macon Woman's College 
in Lynchburg where she lived after her marriage in 1871. Like her 
father, Algernon Gray, who upheld the Union cause in the Virginia 
secession convention and freed many of his slaves during the Civil 
War, Orra Langhorne was an aristocrat of unorthodox leanings. 
Although the Grays emerged from the conflict in greatly reduced 
circumstances, Orra, far from displaying the bitterness so common 
among southerners, "never ceased to marvel, with a mixture of 
poignancy for the past, pride in the present, and hope for the future, 
at the social revolution which had taken place." She became a crusad- 
ing Republican, a suffragette, and a stanch champion of civil rights 
for Negroes. Even in her marriage she displayed an independent and 
compassionate spirit, for her husband, Thomas Nelson Langhorne, 
was blind. 

Orra Langhorne's travels which provided the inspiration for many 
of her perceptive columns published in the Southern Workman were 
largely confined to the Piedmont and Valley of Virginia and were 
usually made by train. On these excursions she noted with immense 
satisfaction the slow erosion of racial prejudice during the decades 
preceding the legalizing of Jim Crow in Virginia. Through her friendly 
conversations with Negroes she learned about their problems, their 
hopes and infrequent successes, their emigration to the North and the 

Book Reviews 101 

mining areas of the West, and their continued exploitation by the 
whites, particularly in domestic service. 

One could wish that Professor Wynes had not taken such generous 
advantage of the editorial prerogative of cutting. But perhaps it is 
better to have too little than too much of a good thing. 

Elizabeth Cometti 
West Virginia University 

Rehearsal For Reconstruction: The Port Royal Experiment. By Willie 
Lee Rose. (Indianapolis, Indiana, and New York: Bobbs-Merrill Com- 
pany. 1964. Illustrations, appendix, index. Pp. xviii, 442. $6.50.) 

In 1861 a Federal naval force seized Port Royal, one of the famous 
and glamorous Sea Islands of South Carolina. Port Royal, located 
about halfway between Charleston and Savannah, offered the navy 
an admirable base from which its ships of the blockade squadron could 
patrol this section of the southern coast, and the reasons for the occu- 
pation had been wholly military. But the Sea Islands immediately 
presented the Federal government with another opportunity— and 
a problem that nobody had foreseen. The plantation owners on the 
islands, where long-staple cotton was the chief crop, fled at the ap- 
proach of the navy and the soldiers who followed the ships. About 
10,000 slaves remained, however, and they obviously intended to stay 
on the rich lands that had been their ancestral home. 

The opportunity was a twofold one. If the Negroes could be per- 
suaded to work the plantations, precious cotton needed in the northern 
markets could be produced and shipped out. And if the Negroes did 
this, the experiment would show that the blacks would work as free 
laborers. Moreover, in the process, northern missionaries could bring 
to the bondsmen, as degraded as any slave group in the South, the 
arts of civilization, could, in short, demonstrate the favorite thesis of 
the abolitionists: that the slaves deserved to be free. The problem was 
—who should administer the program and control the great experi- 

As any one at all familiar with Civil War administration might 
suspect, the operation of the occupation was placed in several hands, 
governmental and private, and the lines of authority were not always 
clearly defined. At first Secretary of the Treasury Chase, whose de- 
partment had a natural interest in cotton and who himself was devoted 
to the concept of free labor, was the dominating power. Later the 

102 The North Carolina Historical Review 

administration was handed over to the War Department, but Chase 
retained a voice in the selection of the army officials and his agents 
were always on hand to supervise the cotton crop. Private interests 
were represented by a group of dedicated missionaries of both sexes, 
from Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, who were known collec- 
tively as "Gideon's Band" and who had strong support in various 
agencies in Washington. 

The work of all three factions form the substance of Mrs. Rose's 
book. Quite properly she devotes the major space to the labors of the 
missionaries, who were closest to the Negroes and who would in the 
last analysis determine how revolutionary the experiment would be. 
In the end, it would not turn out to be much of a departure. Port 
Royal was clearly an early experiment in a kind of collective society 
sponsored by the government. But nearly all of the people connected 
with it, including the missionaries, believed in the capitalist ideals of 
individual ownership of property and in the economics of the free 
market. The purpose was, in summary, to prepare the former slaves 
to live in the society of the nineteenth century. Not even this objec- 
tive was completely realized. At war's end many of the former white 
owners reappeared and claimed their lands. Still a number of the 
blacks, a larger number than has been supposed, managed to hold on 
to their properties. 

The real importance of the Port Royal experience is that it fore- 
shadows the confusions and contradictions of the later Reconstruction 
era. "All the goals, motives, and ironies first seen at Port Royal would 
be written large in the history of the turbulent years between 1865 
and 1877," Mrs. Rose writes. She describes the rehearsal with restraint 
and sympathy and with a fine eye for the shading in motive of both 
whites and blacks. Not much has been known about the Sea Islands 
occupation, and the book is a contribution to both Civil War and 
Reconstruction history. It is richly deserving of the recognition ac- 
corded it in the Allan Nevins History Prize. 

T. Harry Williams 

Louisiana State University 

Joseph Vallence Bevan: Georgia's First Official Historian. By E. Merton 
Coulter. (Athens: University of Georgia Press. 1964. Wormsloe Founda- 
tion Publications Number Seven. Notes, index. Pp. xvii, 157. $5.00.) 

This is the biography of an obscure man. Bevan lived but thirty-two 
years and played no very important role in history. 

Book Reviews 103 

Bevan was an unusual man. He was the son of a prosperous Georgia 
planter and lumberman. He attended the Universities of Georgia and 
South Carolina, and Coulter provides the reader with interesting 
information about the two schools during the period Bevan attended. 
Bevan then went to England and Scotland for further study and there 
met the philosopher William Godwin. Much of the book concerns the 
correspondence of the prominent Godwin with the young American, 
and Bevan was the recepient of Godwin's well publicized Letter of 
Advice to a Young American on the Course of Study it Might be Most 
Advantageous for him to Pursue. Bevan's study was cut short by the 
death of his father, and the young student returned home. For rea- 
sons unclear to Dr. Coulter the young scholar received very little 
money. In order to earn a living Bevan edited the Augusta Chronicle, 
and Coulter fills a chapter with Bevan's editorial comments. After 
Bevan sold his paper he became a lawyer, but was more involved in 
history. A chapter deals with Bevan's involvement in selecting evi- 
dence to support the side of Governor Troup during the controversy 
over removal of the Creek Indians. This is followed by the most in- 
teresting chapter in the book, an account of Bevan's problems as he 
attempted to collect documents and write a massive history of the 
state. Bevan gave up. The rest of the space is filled with odd facts 
concerning Bevan's role as state legislator, as editor of the Savannah 
Georgian, and information concerning future developments in col- 
lecting and storing state documents. 

Dr. Coulter's reputation as one of the nation's outstanding his- 
torians is well deserved, but this book adds nothing to it. One suspects 
that Dr. Coulter has found all the facts that will be uncovered about 
Bevan, but they are not enough for even a short book. Often one feels 
that the author is merely including bits of information because he had 
the notes; one regrets that he could not have written a short article 
on Bevan and turned his great talent toward a more important subject. 

William S. Hoffmann 
Delta College 

T. Butler King of Georgia. By Edward M. Steel, Jr. (Athens : University 
of Georgia Press. 1964. Notes, bibliographical note, index. Pp. viii, 204. 

If a great wealth of national prominence were prerequisites for be- 
ing the subject of a biography, Thomas Butler King would never have 

104 The North Carolina Historical Review 

had his written. He was frequently on the verge of spectacular finan- 
cial or political success but never reached the heights for which he 
seemed destined. Yet, well-told stories of the lives of supporting actors 
such as he can illumine the times in which they lived, and this one 

King, a native of Massachusetts, married Anna Page, heiress to a 
substantial cotton plantation on Saint Simons Island, Georgia. Within 
a few years after his arrival in Georgia, enough additional lands had 
been purchased to raise his total holdings to 20,000 acres and the 
number of his slaves to 355. 

Unwilling to limit his career to planting, King ventured into politics 
and the promotion of a variety of economic schemes. In the 1830's, 
when his political affiliation was with the state rights party, he repre- 
sented Glynn County in the Georgia Senate, sought unsuccessfully to 
develop Brunswick as the leading port of Georgia, and lost heavily on 
a proposed Brunswick and Florida railroad. The close of the decade, 
however, found him "the flower of the Georgia delegation" in the 
national House of Representatives. 

Having campaigned hard for the Whig candidates, King fully ex- 
pected to become Secretary of the Navy in Zachary Taylor's cabinet. 
Passed over for this appointment, he was instead sent as the Presi- 
dent's special agent to California to advise leaders there as they moved 
toward the formation of a state government. He later opened law 
offices in San Francisco, invested extensively but fruitlessly in gold 
mining, and served President Millard Fillmore as Collector of the 
Port of San Francisco. This position made King "the most powerful 
federal official on the Pacific Coast/' 

Still interested in railroads, King worked during the fifties in Texas 
and Washington as lobbyist for several companies seeking to build 
a transcontinental road over a southern route. Despite the national 
character of his earlier interests, he did not hesitate to go with his 
state down the road of secession. The opening of hostilities found him 
in France serving as the diplomatic representative of Georgia to the 
nations of Europe. 

Along with the full account of the varied career of T. Butler King, 
Professor Steel has included a shorter description of the activities of 
the other members of his family, which he usually left behind during 
his travels. Mrs. King, nurse to the slaves and hostess to a steady 
stream of guests, emerges as the heroine. Some readers will find this 
intimate picture of the home life of two generations of a planter 
family the most interesting aspect of the book. The volume is based 

Book Reviews 105 

almost entirely on manuscript materials, including especially the 
family papers, and is written in a clear, readable style. This reviewer's 
only complaint is that the 24 pages of footnotes are at the end of the 
book where they will either slow the reader or be ignored. 

Henry S. Stroupe 
Wake Forest College 

These Men She Gave. By John F. Stegeman. (Athens: University of 
Georgia Press. 1964. Notes, index. Pp. viii, 179. $4.75.) 

In 1860 Athens, Georgia, was a quiet, prosperous town of 5,000, 
half white and half black. Among its proud possessions were Franklin 
College, later the University of Georgia, and the noted Cobb brothers, 
Howell, then a member of President James Buchanan's cabinet in 
Washington, and Thomas R. R. Following Abraham Lincoln's elec- 
tion in November, 1860, this town, like countless others in the South, 
enthusiastically cast its vote for secession. Like others, it suppressed 
with charges of treason those who preferred to take their chances in 
the Union. Like many other southern communities, Athens eventually 
paid an exorbitant price for its involvement in the American Civil 

This book is a dramatic account of the war's impact on Athens. And 
the author, through this study of the experience of one community 
describes in large measure the momentary triumph and ultimate 
failure of the entire Confederacy. Athens suffered all the problems 
entailed in fighting an unsuccessful war— shortages in physical equip- 
ment and human skills, taxes and inflation, declining discipline and 
decaying houses, illness and death, and profound material if not 
human degeneracy. The relocation of Cook and Brother Gun Factory 
in Athens late in 1862 gave the town's economy a momentary lift but 
not enough to save it. Early in January, 1864, the Athens Southern 
Watchman recorded what three years of war had wrought: "Nothing 
disturbs the solemn stillness except now and then a rickety ox-cart 
whose unlubricated axles make melancholy music. Our great thorough- 
fare which once was crowded with country wagons laden with the 
rich products of a generous soil, is now bare and desolate— its stores 
closed— the noise of trade hushed— nothing to break the stillness. . . ." 

As the volume's title suggests, the author emphasizes less the civilian 
life in wartime Athens than the experience of her soldiers at the front. 

106 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Yet only those who might prefer a social or economic history of a 
Confederate town to a partial description of Lee's campaigns will be 
disappointed, for the book has been written with care, style, and 
clarity. Tom Cobb's Legion, which comprised the Athens and Clarke 
County men, fought as a unit from the Peninsular campaign of 1862 
until Tom Cobb's death at Fredericksburg. Thereafter it was broken 
up, never to be reunited. Eventually, the Athens units lost all their 
officers and over 100 men from the ranks. Athens itself escaped de- 
struction. Federal cavalry units approached the town in August, 
1864, but were driven off. The danger had passed. Yet for the people 
of Athens the price of defeat came high, and the author, through his 
effort to balance the disasters on the battlefield with those at home, 
makes clear the burdens which the Civil War imposed on the people 
on the South. 

Norman A. Graebner 
University of Illinois 

Johnny Cobb: Confederate Aristocrat. By Horace Montgomery. (Athens: 
University of Georgia Press, University of Georgia Monographs No. 11. 
1964. Illustrations, footnotes, bibliographical notes, index. Pp. vii, 104. 

Professor Montgomery of the History Department of the Univer- 
sity of Georgia has written a careful account of life among the aris- 
tocracy in Confederate Georgia. Johnny Cobb was a son of Howell 
Cobb, ardent secessionist, and Confederate major-general who had 
been Secretary of the Treasury in the administration of James 
Buchanan. When war came the younger Cobb enlisted as a private 
in Company B, Second Battalion, Georgia Infantry. He later trans- 
ferred to the Sixteenth Georgia Infantry, after its organization with 
Howell Cobb as colonel. Johnny served on his father's staff and saw 
active service in Virginia, although he did not participate in any 
battles. Instead, his father arranged for him to be sent home as man- 
ager of the extensive Cobb plantations in Georgia. Johnny promptly 
made his headquarters at the "Bear's Den," a large Cobb plantation 
near Macon. 

Johnny Cobb married Lucy Pope Barrow in July, 1863. Their story 
is sometimes tragic, sometimes gay, always refreshing. Life was often 
difficult, even for such wealthy planters as the Cobbs. The Confederate 
government was always attempting to impress their overseers into 

Book Reviews 107 

the army. The Cobbs and the Barrows had a plentiful food supply 
and sold their surplus pork to the Confederate government. Con- 
federate taxes were necessarily high and caused much complaint 
and discomfort. 

The thread of approaching disaster is woven throughout the book. 
The inability of General Joseph E. Johnston s Army of Tennessee to 
stop Sherman's Armies of the Ohio, the Tennessee, and the Cumber- 
land would eventually open the road into Georgia. The presence of 
Sherman's troops, their capture of Atlanta, and the March to the 
Sea would forever destroy the cherished way of life of people like 
the Cobbs and the Barrows. 

This book is a family history of the Cobbs and the Barrows, two 
important Georgia families, during the Civil War. Professor Mont- 
gomery fails to mention the fact that the experiences of Johnny and 
Lucy Cobb were typical of the experiences of thousands of other 
young southern aristocrats caught in the cataclysm of the Civil War. 
Another weakness of the book is the omission of a descriptive chapter 
giving the background of the Cobb and Barrow families and their 
proper position in the social system of ante-bellum Georgia. The 
book is delightful rather than authoritative, but it provides interesting 
and profitable reading nonetheless. 

Richard W. Iobst 

State Department of Archives and History 

^The Mind of the Old South. By Clement Eaton. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana 
State University Press. 1964. Illustrations. Pp. xiii, 271. $6.00.) 

For twenty-five years Clement Eaton has been a (perhaps the) 
recognized authority on southern ante-bellum intellectual and social 
history. Time and again he has dared to hypothesize in subjective 
areas where most historians apparently have feared to tread. For this 
historians will ever be in his debt. In the present volume Professor 
Eaton has "tried to trace the development of the Southern mind 
through representative individuals." Actually, he has given 12 stimu- 
lating essays on 15 men, on two subjects even he is not at ease with 
("The Southern Yeomen: The Humorists' View" and "The Religious 
Experience: The Evangelical, Calvinistic, and Genteel Traditions"), 
and on his conclusion, "The Dynamics of the Southern Mind." Al- 
though the volume is eminently readable, Clement Eaton's plan and 
some of his generalizations are confusing and perhaps contradictory. 

108 The North Carolina Historical Review 

There is no doubt that southern mores changed appreciably be- 
tween Jefferson and Jefferson Davis; nor that southerners of the 1850's 
may be characterized as having an exaggerated sense of honor, as be- 
lievers in a profound religious orthodoxy, as possessing intense local 
patriotism, as being extremely conservative and intolerant toward 
heterodox ideas, and even as possessing a "powerful and mysterious 
race feeling." Few would deny that the ministry produced no social 
critic, that after 1830 slavery helped close the southern mind to new 
and liberal notions, or that the South "blundered into the great tragedy 
of the Civil War." 

But to argue that John Hartwell Cocke is representative of "the 
liberal mind," or Maunsel White of "the commercial mind," or William 
Gilmore Simms of "the romantic mind," or Joseph Le Conte of "the 
scientific mind," or even that such minds exist is something else again. 
In any case, Mr. Eaton finds it difficult to classify the exact kind of 
mind exhibited by James Henley Thornwell and Leonidas Polk (con- 
servative? religious? evangelical?) or by Augustus Baldwin Long- 
street or Hugh Swinton Legare, though he warily implies a "status- 
quo mind" for James H. Hammond, and is willing to concede that the 
Negrophobic Hinton Rowan Helper and the radical Cassius Marcellus 
Clay might be described as eccentric. The author could not find 
adequate source material to depict any sort of "Negro mind," which 
makes one suspect that his sketches stem primarily from the accessi- 
bility of first hand data. It is obvious that the Kentucky professor has 
searched for his facts from the Athenaeum to the Huntington Library, 
for on every other page he tells where this or that letter or diary rests 

Although the reviewer was fascinated by each and every essay, he 
found it hard to understand why South Carolina planters moved to 
Mississippi if there were no strong economic reason for them to be 
dissatisfied with slavery. Or why, if southerners were so emotional 
about the nullification crisis, no other state supported South Carolina. 
Or why Mr. Eaton would declare that within two generations of 
William Tappan Thompson's prophecy (in 1845) that education 
would make the southern masses a great people, this had come to pass. 
How can anyone generalize about the South from the life of Legare, 
and if Legare was typical of anything why was he so discontented 
and alone when he returned to his humdrum America? 

Still, this is a fine series of essays which are thoroughly recom- 
mended for style and content, especially to those hardy souls who 
dare venture into the realm of conjecture. What Professor Eaton, who 

Book Reviews 109 

has spent a long life reading manuscripts in this field, has to say is 
always worth listening to. If he states that he has found little evidence 
of a guilt complex among southern people after 1835, one does not 
question him. It may be difficult, though, to understand the need for 
quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes on Franklin Roosevelt to 
explain Hammond, and to blame romanticism for the demand of 
southerners that they be permitted to take slaves into territory un- 
economical for slavery. It could be that these people were just stupid. 
If romanticism was responsible for southern heroism in the Mexican 
War, readers would like to know the cause of heroism in the Revolu- 
tion. Maybe there wasn't any. One thing is clear: It has taken more 
than Clement Eaton's romanticism to produce his absorbing interpre- 
tation of the South. 

James W. Silver 

University of Mississippi 

An Historian and the Civil War. By Avery Craven. (Chicago, Illinois: The 
University of Chicago Press. 1964. Pp. 233. $5.95.) 

In these essays an eminent historian retraces some of his steps in 
the search for reasons why the nation drifted apart after 1830 and 
how at last it slipped into war. Written over a period of thirty-five 
years and for different audiences, these essays inevitably contain 
redundancies and an occasional unsupported generalization, but 
these do not detract from either the basic themes or the trim style 
of An Historian and the Civil War. 

Commencing with a look at the agricultural reformers of the ante- 
bellum South, the author views the improvements advocated by 
John Taylor of Caroline and Edmund Ruffin as more than an effort to 
restore the fertility of the soil. They also, he argues, had in mind the 
restoration of the South as a section by providing it with the consti- 
tutional and agricultural weapons needed in the coming struggle 
with the industrial North. From here several roads led to Fort Sum- 
ter. One was the expansion of local and class issues into sectional 
ones, which eventually became intensified by the growing inter- 
dependence of society caused by industrialization and the revolution 
in communications. Another was the mounting fury of the abolitionist 
attack, which began as a part of the "larger humanitarian impulse" 
in the 1830's and by distortion and indoctrination converted the 

110 The North Carolina Historical Review 

"slaveocracy" into a hated and dreaded symbol, in the process trig- 
gering every defense— Biblical, historical and constitutional— that the 
South, growing increasingly conscious and bitter, could employ. 

Thus the underlying cause of the Civil War, according to Pro- 
fessor Craven, was emotional. After 1840, when few issues were 
allowed to stand on their merits, the politicians on both sides "gave j 
an air of reality to the abstractions of those who had evolved the 
slavery question into a struggle of civilizations." As emotions began 
to rule, the democratic process broke down, the two sections became 
engaged in what today would be called a "Cold War," until finally, 
when the national political parties that for years had worked for 
sectional agreement and national compromise had yielded to sec- 
tional parties, the conflict became "irrepressible." 

This is a worthwhile book. In contrast to so many of the water- 
soaked items that have floated by in the recent flood of Civil War 
literature, this volume describes a national tragedy rather than "a 
romantic museum piece." Professor Craven's thoughtful assessment 
of the appalling cost of the conflict, not only in life and property but 
also in human values, political conduct, and economic order, gives 
added emphasis to his thesis that the American Iliad was something 
to regret rather than glorify. 

And in attempting to learn from the "blindness, the blundering, 
and the helplessness of men" trapped on the verge of conflict, the 
author presents history as a meaningful dialogue between past and 
present. As such it is loaded with lessons for today. The 
struggle between "right" and "rights" is still going on, however one 
interprets it. The conflict between those who would appeal to the 
constitution to protect certain rights and interests and those who 
invoke the "higher law" stressing the abstract rights as stated in the 
Declaration of Independence has yet to be resolved. And finally, in 
today's "Cold War" no less than the issues that at present face the 
nation, is there not a similar danger that concrete issues might be 
reduced to abstract principles to the point where compromise is diffi- 
cult, if not impossible. As Professor Craven emphasizes time and 
again, concrete interests can be adjusted, but when abstract values 
are in conflict, when everything is seen as being right or wrong, then 
the solution to men's problems becomes infinitely more difficult. 

Jay Luvaas 
Allegheny College 

Book Reviews 111 

Refugee Life in the Confederacy. By Mary Elizabeth Massey. (Baton 
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. 1964. Pp. xii, 327. $8.00.) 

Mary Elizabeth Massey, Chairman of the Department of History 
at Winthrop College, established her reputation as a student of Con- 
federate social history several years ago with the publication of her 
Ersatz in the Confederacy. She has now put students of southern his- 
tory still further in her debt by her new book, Refugee Life in the 

Derived from painstaking and wide-ranging research— one has the 
feeling that she has seen everything that the historical record affords 
on the subject— this study sets down the poignant story of the har- 
assed victims who were displaced and dislocated by invasion (both 
real and threatened), and the shocks and attritions of war. One won- 
ders that so moving and so significant a story should so long have 
lacked a historian. It is gratifying, moreover, to have a book that 
still has something fresh and important to say about the Civil War 
theme— most of whose topics, sub-topics, and sub-sub-topics are ap- 
proaching (if they have not passed) the point of exhaustion. 

The North, of course, largely escaped the disasters that Dr. Mas- 
sey describes, and it is clear that these misfortunes had a very real 
bearing upon the collapse of civilian and soldier morale which, in 
the end, doomed the Confederate cause. The author concludes that 
the South's civilians were psychologically unprepared for a "war on 
their doorsteps," and, before they could realize the precariousness 
of their situation, found themselves incredibly and directly and per- 
sonally involved in war. Her study persuades her, too, that southern 
leadership showed a surprising lack of interest in the problem ( unless 
it in some way touched the military situation), so that the hapless 
civilians were, for the most part, left to fend for themselves. 

It is an altogether fascinating, if depressing, narrative, and one 
marvels again at the fortitude of a people who could for so long 
carry such fearful burdens with so little realistic prospect of success. 

The book is well written, handsomely printed and bound. Exten- 
sive notes, gathered in the back of the book, assure the reader of the 
authority of the text, and a bibliography and index add to the schol- 
arly value of the work. 

Richard Bardolph 

The University of North Carolina 
at Greensboro 

112 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Southern White Protestantism in the Twentieth Century. By Kenneth K. 
Bailey. (New York, Evanston, Illinois, and London: Harper and Row. 
1964. Preface, notes, bibliographical essay, index. Pp. x, 180. $3.75.) 

Recent southern historiography has turned toward the interpre- 
tation of the region through social myths or mental pictures of what 
southerners think they are or what others consider them to be. The 
plantation myth and the Civil War myth are probably among the 
best known, but the Bible Belt stereotype and the idea of the be- 
nighted South as popularized by H. L. Mencken are also widely 
accepted. In Southern White Protestantism, Kenneth K. Bailey con- 
tributes somewhat to the benighted Bible Belt myth, but as a south- 
erner, he writes with more understanding than criticism. He presents 
evidence in support of the sectional nature of religion as a deter- 
mining factor in southern history. 

The author's purpose is to survey the responses of the white 
Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians in the South to the chal- 
lenges of the twentieth century and to portray these denominations 
in interaction with their culture. Bailey gives an excellent back- 
ground of nineteenth-century factors which influenced reactions to 
major twentieth-century problems. 

The social gospel movement was significant before World War I, 
but with post-war disillusionment it declined, giving place to the 
fundamentalist-modernist controversy and the crusade against Dar- 
winism. The presidential election of 1928 helped to heal the 
fundamentalist-modernist schism by offering an opportunity for 
these churchmen to unite in promoting prohibition and Protestant- 
ism. Creating common problems, the depression lessened section- 
alism and brought denominations closer to national unity. 

Since 1940 interest in social reform has increased. The three 
denominational governing bodies have advocated integration, but 
many local congregations have been slow to comply. Despite the 
racial issue, sectionalism declines with the waning of poverty and 
agrarianism. Still, among the southern denominations there is a 
continuing influence of the past. 

In interpreting these issues Bailey stresses the emotionalism of 
southern religion; the ecclesiastical isolationism; and the fact that 
due to regional poverty, a large percentage of religious leaders were 
semieducated. For a more balanced account, the author should have 
included examples of liberal thought and practice. In failing to give 
credit to educated southern churchmen who fought for social re- 

Book Reviews 113 

form, freedom of teaching in the 1920's, and interracial co-operation 
before 1940, the author contributes to the myth of the benighted 
South. Nevertheless, the outspoken liberals were definitely in the 
minority, and perhaps the author felt that he should emphasize the 
general reactions of the major denominations. 

This book will prove most valuable to historians, clergymen, and 
others interested in interpreting current problems and reactions of 
the South. Bailey has written with clarity and insight. The scholarly 
and well documented book is readable and relevant to present 

Suzanne Cameron Linder 

James A. Gray High School 


The Three Worlds of Captain John Smith. By Philip L. Barbour. (Boston, 
Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin. 1964. Illustrations, commentaries, 
bibliography, maps, index. Pp. xix, 553. $7.50.) 

This volume should be a book to end all books about Captain 
John Smith: It has nearly 400 pages of text, about 90 pages of com- 
mentaries and notes, more than 30 pages of bibliography, a copious 
index, 15 illustrations of contemporary characters and events, and 
six maps (not contemporary) of areas discussed. The book is ar- 
ranged, as suggested in the title, into sections on Smith's early adven- 
tures in southeastern Europe, his life in the infant colony of Virginia, 
and his promotional efforts in England in the last years of his life 
(largely in the form of writing) to stimulate colonizing interest and 

It can almost be said that Barbour attempts a biography of Smith 
in the grand style of Freeman's Lee. The great difficulty in accom- 
plishing a work of this proportion would seem to be the paucity of 
factual material. The author, however, refuses to be intimidated by 
this formidable obstacle. He uses the available material, not once 
but several times, and when authentic material is not available, he 
postulates, surmises, and imagines with endless prolixity. Barbour, 
himself, explains his approach in his preface: 

In presenting this study of Captain John Smith I have worked on what I 
believe may be called a scientific basis. To round out the story, I have 
added hypothetical explanation, without which it would be empty sequences 
of fact. The persons of the action would be but historical puppets. But by 

114 The North Carolina Historical Review 

filling in with surmise and hypothesis where necessary, I trust I have ex- 
plained the facts. 

Two fragmented quotations taken almost at random from widely 
separated portions of the book illustrate the methodology on which 
much of the work is based. On pages 14 and 15, Barbour writes: 
"The possibility that Smith borrowed his reading material from Lord 
Willoughby hints at the great probability. . . ." On page 354 one finds, 
"In fact it may be surmised without too much implausibility. . . * 
(The italics are the reviewer's.) The volume is studded with quali- 
fications of this kind which reveal the author's knowledge of the 
time and area in which Smith lived, and his active imagination, if 
not the historicity of the result. The notes and commentaries fre- 
quently give the author's justification of his surmises. 

Though Barbour strives to write with objectivity, Smith is his 
hero whose virtues, real and imaginary, are extolled, whose faults 
are glossed over or explained away, and whose opponents are fre- 
quently inspired by base motives. 

In all fairness, however, it ought to be said that this book is a 
labor of love for which the author collected material from many 
sources and over a period of five years. The effort, devotion, dedica- 
tion, and thought that have gone into its making should not be 
discounted or minimized. It may be that a less dyspeptic reviewer, 
more learned in the lore and history of Elizabethan and Stuart Eng- 
land and perhaps less steeped in Von Ranke's sterile wie es eigenlich 
gewesen would have better appreciation for and more understand- 
ing of The Three Worlds of Captain John Smith. The book is a 
monument to the energy, research, and ingenuity of its author. 
Readers will probably vary in their responses. 

Cecil Johnson 

The University of North Carolina 
at Chapel Hill 

The Glorious Revolution in America : Documents on the Colonial Crisis of 
1689. Edited by Michael G. Hall, Lawrence H. Leder, and Michael G. 
Kammen. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, for 
the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, 
Virginia. 1964. Pp. xv, 216. $2.50.) 

This is a useful little book. It is a collection of original documents 
related to the rebellions of 1689-1690 in Massachusetts, New York, 

Book Reviews 115 

and Maryland. It does for these three colonies what Charles M. 
Andrews' Narratives of the Insurrections (New York, 1915) did for 
these, plus Virginia and North Carolina, but it includes a consider- 
able number of documents not included in the Andrews volume. For 
each of the three Parts devoted to the three rebellions, the book 
follows the same general pattern: (a) documents illustrative of the 
"Seeds of Discontent," (b) documents illustrative of the "Pattern of 
Revolution," and (c) documents illustrative of "The Consequences 
of Rebellion." Within each section, however, the sub-topics covered 
vary according to the local historical realities of the rebellion con- 
cerned. There is a general prologue, entitled "The Colonial Crisis 
of 1689" and an epilogue called "The Revolutionary Settlement in 
America," and each of the three sections of each of the three parts 
has its own introduction. There is a brief selected list of "suggested 

The documents presented constitute a fine selection. The intro- 
ductions to the sections are brief and rather general, almost too 
sketchy to be very useful. There are no footnotes, and no editorial 
explanations of specific incidents and ideas in the documents. The 
book would also be much more valuable and useful if each document 
had its own headnote. 

Some of the titles to the documents are misleading, even inaccu- 
rate. For example, document 4, A (p. 20) is entitled "The Magis- 
trates Draft a Bill Recognizing the Authority of Parliament, Febru- 
ary 24, 1682." But this title is not accurate: The Massachusetts Magis- 
trates had no intention of recognizing the authority of Parliament in 
Massachusetts. They re-enacted for Massachusetts the Navigation 
laws of Parliament. In any case, the bill did not become law because 
the House of Deputies refused to vote for it. 

On the other hand, document 4, B (pp. 21-22), to which the 
magistrates refused their assent, is entitled "The House of Deputies 
Denies Parliaments' authority, February 23, 1682." Here, too, the 
bill refers not at all to Parliaments' authority. It simply re-enacts, in 
its own words, for Massachusetts, the provisions of the major Navi- 
gation Acts then on the English lawbooks. 

The fact is that both the Magistrates' bill and the House bill re- 
enacted English Navigation Acts for Massachusetts. Both houses 
deliberately avoided any reference to, or admission of "The Author- 
ity of Parliament" in Massachusetts. Both houses, recognizing that 
the colony was under fire because of its evasion of the Navigation 
Acts, were attempting to make an arrangement that would appease 

116 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Edward Randolph and the Crown, while evading any recognition 
of the "Authority of Parliament" within the colony. The two houses 
differed only in the method used. 

It is the opinion of this reviewer that the editors, in their "Epi- 
logue," exaggerate the importance of the "American Revolutions of 
1689" (sic) in the history of both the colonies and the British Empire. 
That the political disturbances in these three colonies— and in others 
—during these years hastened, or illustrated, a tendency in the col- 
onies toward a more generally uniform system of representative 
institutions is probably true. But it may be doubted whether they 
had any significant effect upon English colonial policy; nor is there 
any convincing evidence to show that had these three colonies "not 
rebelled when they did, there is every reason to believe that the 
aggressive centralizing forces of the executive bureaucracy in Lon- 
don would have dominated the constitution of the empire in Amer- 
ica" (p. 213). Surely such a guess attributes too much intelligence, 
consistency, power, and purity of politics to the English bureaucracy 
and too little to the Americans. 

Nor can it be shown that these rebellions really shaped "a set of 
imperial relationships" or defined "the rights, liberties, and privi- 
leges of American subjects," or "made possible the formation of the 
first British Empire" (p. 214). Such statements all too casually 
ignore the historical facts and forces at work both in England and in 
the colonies. These rebellions had their importance in the evolution 
of the colonies and of the British Empire; but they were not that 

Max Savelle 

University of Washington 

Conestoga Wagon, 1750-1850 : Freight Carrier for 100 Years of America's 
Westward Expansion. By George Shumway, Edward Durrell, and 
Howard C. Frey. (York, Pennsylvania : George Shumway and the Early 
American Industries Association, Inc. 1964. Illustrations, tables, maps, 
index. Pp. xi, 206. $12.50.) 

While the novelist and the cinema have glorified the latter-day 
"prairie schooner," the granddaddy of the covered wagon, the Co- 
nestoga, has been neglected. This volume seeks to enshrine it in its 
proper historical niche. 

This first book-length publication of the Early American Indus- 

Book Reviews 117 

tries Association illustrates not only the arts and crafts of the car- 
penter, wheelwright, and the blacksmith of the Colonial Period, but 
also the tremendous role which Conestogas played in the develop- 
ment of America from the French and Indian War until railroads 
rendered them obsolete. 

German and English settlers in the Conestoga River Valley of 
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, developed a special wagon and a 
horse to meet the needs of hauling freight from Philadelphia over 
the Allegheny Mountains to the Ohio River. The Conestoga wagon 
was artistically designed and sturdily built of white oak, with red 
running gear, a light blue box, and ironwork individually unique. 
Drawn by six Conestoga horses, these wagons could haul up to 
8,500 pounds. 

The earliest known reference to a "Conestogoe Waggon" is 1717; 
Benjamin Franklin obtained 150 Conestogas for Braddock's Expedi- 
tion in 1755. The wagon is also identified with Forbes' Road across 
Pennsylvania, the Great Wagon Road from Philadelphia to the Yad- 
kin River in North Carolina, and reached its peak use on the Na- 
tional Road in the Westward Movement between 1815 and 1850. 

An intriguing folklore developed around Conestoga wagon travel 
and among the surviving popular expressions is "111 be there with 
bells on!" The book is more than a romantic tale, however, and 
contains over 100 excellent illustrations of surviving Conestoga 
wagons and accessories. The book is, indeed, what the Conestoga 
wagon was, a work of art serving a useful purpose, written in loving 
detail by those who know its nomenclature and appreciate its sig- 
nificance in the development of America. It will interest the general 
reader and will be indispensable to museums. 

Percival Perry 
Wake Forest College 

The Papers of Henry Clay, Volume III. Presidential Candidate, 1821-1824. 
Edited by James F. Hopkins. Mary W. M. Hargreaves, Associate Editor. 
(Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press. 1963. Index. Pp. viii, 
933. $15.00.) 

This is the third of a projected ten-volume publication of the com- 
plete papers of Henry Clay. The book covers Clay's career from 
January 1, 1821, as he was about to take a decisive hand in settling 
the Missouri question, to December 31, 1824, as he pondered his 

118 The North Carolina Historical Review 

next political move after his presidential ambitions had been shat- 
tered by the election of 1824. This volume is, of course, primarily a 
tool for researchers, but the casual history enthusiast interested in 
getting the sense of a period by reading primary sources will find 
himself well rewarded. Here one can participate in American culture 
of the 1820's through the personality of Henry Clay— the impe- 
cunious western gentleman attempting to avoid financial chaos by 
engaging in land speculation and by taking any law case he could 
find, whether for local interests, for the Jefferson family, or for the 
Bank of the United States; the "local boy" involved with Kentucky 
politics, church affairs, and education; the hard-boiled sectionalist 
politician pushing through his "American System"; the aggressive 
Democrat supporting revolution in Latin America, Spain, and 
Greece; the compromising nationalist forging the Missouri Com- 
promise and backing the American Colonization Society. 

The dominant theme of the years 1821-1824, however, as the title 
suggests, is Clay's first attempt to gain the presidency, an attempt 
which reflects the eternal and the ephemeral in American politics. 
Such items as Clay's beginning his campaign three years before 
election day, or the statement "I do not feel myself required to dis- 
countenance or repress the exertions which they [his friends] are 
disposed to make on my behalf," or the imputation of his defeat 
to a hostile press, government patronage, and "fabrications" all ring 
a familiar note today. On the other hand, Clay's maneuverings dis- 
play techniques and attitudes of an era of genteel politics which was 
already on the wane. For example, there was his practice of eschew- 
ing public statements and letting his friends and friendly newspapers 
spread his views; or, there was his old-fashioned philosophy of gov- 
ernment contributing to his decision to support Adams over Jackson 
in the crucial vote in the House of Representatives: "What . . . 
should be the distinguishing characteristic of an American States- 
man? Should it not be a devotion to civil liberty? Is it then compat- 
ible, to elect a man, whose sole recommendation rests on military 

As a research tool, this volume continues the major virtues and 
minor vices of the University of Kentucky enterprise. It is commend- 
ably exhaustive, containing all the incidentals of Clay's life as well 
as the "state papers." ( Sometimes these items do as well as any 
notable letter to mirror a bygone day: e.g., a tuition bill from Tran- 
sylvania University for $13.33.) The book is set in large, clear type, 
with well-annotated footnotes which are extensively cross-referenced. 

Book Reviews 119 

One must necessarily make do with an index of proper names until 
the final comprehensive index volume appears. While the book is 
certainly complete enough for any researcher, its usefulness is im- 
paired by the lack of a biographical chronology and a table of con- 
tents listing the documents chronologically— techniques found in the 
Jefferson papers. This publication presents another sound collection 
of documents, and thus another step toward improving the quality 
of American historical scholarship. 

Richard D. Goff 
Michigan State University 

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States. Harry S. Truman. 
Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the Presi- 
dent, January 1 to December 31, 1948. (Washington, D. C. : United States 
Government Printing Office, for the National Archives. 1964. Appen- 
dixes, index. Pp. ix, 1,079. $9.75.) 

This large, handsome volume containing the significant executive 
documents and public pronouncements of President Harry S. Tru- 
man for 1948 is the fourth in a government-sponsored series of pres- 
idential papers to deal with the Truman administration. The editor, 
Warren R. Reid, has demonstrated in this work the same care and 
skill that marked the earlier volumes. Researchers will find their 
tasks much simpler as a result of his judicious solutions to problems 
of arrangement, indexing, and explanatory notes. 

The 288 items in the text include a wide variety of materials 
which, considered collectively, reveal much about the problems and 
policies of the Truman administration in a crucial year. Although 
foreign affairs and especially the East-West rivalry occupy an im- 
portant place, the documents in this volume are focused upon domes- 
tic issues such as social security, labor legislation, housing, civil 
rights, education, rent and price controls, farm questions, medical 
care, and internal security. In short, these records not only depict 
the emergence of the Fair Deal as a comprehensive program for 
social and economic advancement, but also provide glimpses into 
the tug of war which it provoked between a Democratic president 
and a Republican congress. 

Of particular interest are the numerous items dealing with the 
presidential campaign of 1948. The verbatim transcripts of the Pres- 
ident's news conferences and whistle-stop speeches offer an extra- 

120 The North Carolina Historical Review 

ordinary view of Truman the politician. In a hard-hitting campaign 
that carried him from Skyomish, Washington, to Fall River, Massa- 
chusetts, the President assailed the Republican Eightieth Congress 
as a "do-nothing" body dominated by economic royalists whose 
philosophy of individualism promised far more raggedness than rug- 
gedness. Skilled in the art of stump-speaking, Truman emphasized 
civil rights in Harlem, the possible return of "Hoover carts" in North 
Carolina, flood control in Oklahoma, and labor's welfare in Michi- 
gan. His "rear platform remarks" which constitute a sizable portion 
of this volume capture to a remarkable degree the image of an astute, 
tough-minded politician who played the odds against a "poll-happy" 
opposition and won. 

Willard B. Gatewood, Jr. 
The University of Georgia 


Dr. Charles Crossfield Ware continues a series of monographs 
with his recent publication, Coastal Plain Christians. The five book- 
lets published to date cover the historical development of the Union 
Meeting Districts and their component churches, which are affili- 
ated with the North Carolina Christian Churches. Coastal Plain 
Christians includes sketches of 14 Disciples of Christ churches located 
in the east central part of North Carolina. Churches in Durham, 
Edgecombe, Halifax, Nash, Wake, and Wilson counties are dis- 
cussed. Persons interested in church history will find this 78-page 
publication of value. Copies are available for $1.00 each from Dr. 
Ware at Box 1164, Wilson. 

Another recent church history is A History of the First Presby- 
terian Church of Mocksville, North Carolina, by James W. Wall. The 
church whose history is traced in the book is nearly two hundred 
years old, and its story is given in a comprehensive study which 
necessarily includes information about individuals as well as the 
church itself. Mr. Wall has relied on primary materials collected by 
a former pastor of the church, on legal records, on interviews with 
people who recalled the late 1800's and early 1900's, and on mate- 
rials relating to the history of Mocksville and Davie County but 
which had a bearing on the history of the First Presbyterian Church. 
The fact that the publication is carefully documented should be 

Book Reviews 121 

noted; too often, church histories are not prepared with the care 
obviously devoted to this study. Statistical data, cemetery records, 
names of members, and other such matters are given in appendixes. 
The book is indexed and illustrated. Copies, clothbound, 136 pages, 
are available for $5.00 each from Mr. Wall, 445 Church Street, 
Mocksville, or from the First Presbyterian Church, Mocksville. 

A History of Old Fourth Creek Congregation, 1764-1964 . . . was 
published on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of the 
church now known as the First Presbyterian Church of States ville. 
Sections giving the history of the women of the church, the youth 
in the church, the history of the First Presbyterian Church of States- 
ville, and the Fourth Creek Burying Ground give an indication of 
the contents of this paper-bound publication. The brochure was 
planned and edited under the direction of the historical subcom- 
mittee of the church. Excellent illustrations add immeasurably to 
the value of the 29 pages. The price is 50 cents per copy plus 25 cents 
handling charge. Orders may be sent to the First Presbyterian Church, 
P. O. Box 467, Statesville, N. C, 28677. 

The Virginia Baptist Register, Number Three, may be ordered 
from The Virginia Baptist Historical Society, University of Rich- 
mond, Richmond, Virginia, 23173. The price is $1.50; the cost to 
members of the Society is $1.00. Numbers One, 1962, and Two, 1963, 
are still available at the same price as Number Three. 

Volume I, Number 1, of America- History and Life, was issued in 
July, 1964. The editor of this guide to periodical literature, which 
contains abstracts from articles in leading journals, is Eric H. Boehm. 
Included are surveys of 500 United States and Canadian periodicals 
and 1,000 foreign publications. For information about subscription 
rates to the periodical (issued three times a year) write to Ameri- 
can Bibliographical Center, Att.: ASP, 800 East Micheltorena Street, 
Santa Barbara, California, 93103. 

The Indiana Historical Bureau, Indianapolis, has recently pub- 
lished Governor Samuel Bigger: Messages and Tapers, 1840-1843, 
edited by Gayle Thornbrough. This volume is the seventh in the 
series of papers and messages of the governors of Indiana. The 669- 
page book is footnoted and indexed and contains as a frontispiece a 
picture of Governor Bigger. Copies at $7.50 each may be obtained 

122 The North Carolina Historical Review 

from the Director, Hubert H. Hawkins, Indiana Historical Bureau, 
140 N. Senate Avenue, Indianapolis 4, Indiana. 

English Wills- Probate Records in England and Wales With a 
Brief Note on Scottish and Irish Wills, by Peter Walne, County 
Archivist of Hertford, is a special report of the Virginia Colonial 
Records Project. Persons interested in the probate of English wills 
will find information concerning the possible locations of American 
wills which might have been recorded in England as late as 1858. 
The report was published by the Virginia State Library in Richmond. 
Copies are available from the publisher at $2.00 a copy; a 25 per 
cent discount is offered to libraries and dealers. 

A 23-page booklet, Brief Chronological History of Johnson City, 
Tennessee, and Three Suggested Historical Tours of the Johnson 
City Area, is by Mary Hardin McCown and was published with the 
co-operation of the Johnson City Chamber of Commerce. Johnson 
City's history goes back to the days just after the American Revolu- 
tion. The historical sketch concludes with one footnote indicating 
that the data were obtained from "available records of Johnson City 
and Washington County, Tennessee." There is no further breakdown. 
The three tours are outlined in some detail, with descriptions of each 
point of interest and with accompanying maps. Persons interested in 
this publication should write to Mrs. L. W. McCown, 512 E. Unaka 
Avenue, Johnson City, Tennessee. The cost is 50 cents. 

Mary Hardin McCown transcribed certain Tennessee records 
which she, Nancy E. Jones Stickley, and Inez E. Burns then com- 
piled. Published under the title Washington County, Tennessee Rec- 
ords, Volume I, a 257-page book, contains Washington County lists 
of taxables, 1778-1801; the abstract of Washington County minutes 
of the court of pleas and quarter sessions, 1778-1801; lists of officers 
of Washington County, 1778-1801; and miscellaneous records in 
Washington County. The hundreds of names will make this publi- 
cation of particular value to genealogists, but the lack of an Index 
is a liability. The price of the book is $13; copies may be ordered 
from Mrs. L. W. McCown, 512 E. Unaka Avenue, Johnson City, Ten- 

Inventory of the Mallory Family Papers, 1808-1958, compiled by 
Charles R. Schultz, Keeper of Manuscripts, Mystic Seaport Library, 

Book Reviews 123 

is another publication of interest to genealogists. The 24 pages con- 
tain a biographical sketch of the Mallory family, a physical descrip- 
tion of the papers, box and folder breakdown and list of volumes, 
and subject tracings. Further information may be obtained from the 
Mystic Seaport Library, Marine Historical Association, Inc., Mystic, 

One of the most interesting recent publications of the National 
Archives is entitled Civil War Maps in the National Archives. The 
127-page study describes approximately 8,000 maps, charts, and 
plans pertaining to the Civil War. There are two distinct parts, one 
of which is a guide giving brief item descriptions of all Civil War 
maps and related records located in the Cartographic Branch of the 
National Archives. A number of exceptionally significant items have 
been selected for inclusion in the second part which fully describes 
those maps. A comprehensive Index adds to the value of the publi- 
cation. Copies of this illustrated book are for sale from the Superin- 
tendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, 
Washington, D. C, 20402, for 75 cents each. 

Another National Archives publication, 24 pages in length, is 
National Archives Accessions, a supplement to the National Archives 
Guide. Issued in September, 1964, there is a section on the early cor- 
respondence filing systems of the office of the Secretary of the Navy, 
by Kenneth F. Bartlett, and accessions for the year July 1, 1962, 
through June 30, 1963. The indexed study was published by the Gov- 
ernment Printing Office and is free of charge. 

Special Lists Number 20, Papers of the United States Senate Relat- 
ing to Presidential Nominations, 1789-1901 (Record Group 46), was 
compiled by George P. Perros, James C. Brown, and Jacqueline A. 
Wood. Published by the National Archives, this particular publica- 
tion lists numerous names of presidential appointees presented to the 
Senate for confirmation. An index of names is included in the back of 
the 111-page report. This publication is free from the Exhibits and 
Publications Division, National Archives, General Services Adminis- 
tration, Washington, D. C, 20408. 

The State Department of Archives and History has recently re- 
ceived two additional National Archives reports in its Preliminary 
Inventories series. Number 161, Preliminary Inventory of the Records 

124 The North Carolina Historical Review 

of the Bureau of the Census, was compiled by Katherine H. David- 
son and Charlotte M. Ashby; Number 162, Preliminary Inventory of 
the Records of the 1961 Inaugural Committee, was compiled by Mar- 
ion M. Johnson. The publication relating to census records contains 
141 pages; the inaugural committee report has 18 pages. Both are 
available free of charge from the Exhibits and Publications Division, 
National Archives, General Services Administration, Washington, 
D. C, 20408. 

A 35-page pamphlet, Hillsborough and the Regulators, written by 
Annie Sutton Cameron, published by the Orange County Historical 
Museum, contains a chapter on Hillsboro as it appeared in 1768. The 
booklet, designed for seventh grade North Carolina history students, 
is available at The Orange County Historical Museum, Hillsboro, at 
a nominal cost. 



Director's Office 

The Department's Executive Board met in Raleigh on September 15 
with all members present. One of the chief actions taken was approval of 
a resolution urging that an immediate move be made to check erosion at 
Fort Fisher. (Subsequently, Dr. Christopher Crittenden, Director, dis- 
cussed this matter with the Governor and various state agencies, and it 
appeared that at least a temporary solution would be found shortly.) 

The Raleigh Historic Sites Commission, of which Mr. W. H. Trentman 
is chairman, met regularly every month. One of the meetings was a picnic 
a few miles south of Raleigh at Penny's Mill, which now belongs to North 
Carolina State of The University of North Carolina at Raleigh. Initial 
steps were taken which, it is hoped, will lead to the preservation of the 

Dr. Crittenden made many trips to different places in the state and 
delivered addresses to various groups, including several civic clubs, the 
United Daughters of the Confederacy, and historic site organizations. 

A travel information conference for innkeepers, restaurateurs, and 
those engaged in similar businesses was held at East Carolina College, 
Greenville, October 27. The program was repeated on succeeding days in 
Winston-Salem and in Asheville. Since historic sites were involved, the 
department sent representatives to the first and third conferences. 

Division of Archives and Manuscripts 

The Society of American Archivists' Distinguished Service Award was 
presented to the State Department of Archives and History October 8 
in Austin, Texas. The award, presented for the first time, cited the North 
Carolina archival-records management program on the following counts: 
demonstrably contributing to archival theory and developing new archival 
practices; showing extraordinary ingenuity and resourcefulness in im- 
proving efficiency of operations and improving methods of work ; serving 
its constituents in an outstanding fashion; bringing great credit to the 
archival profession by being a model for other organizations; going 
beyond the normal performance requirements expected of an archival 
agency and so being an incentive to others; publishing exemplary and 
meritorious finding aids and statements of available service; and devel- 
oping over a period of years an archival program of such depth and scope 
as to warrant special recognition. 

126 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The 32-inch trophy was accepted at Austin on behalf of the department 
by State Archivist H. G. Jones. Later, on November 23, Dr. Everett 0. 
Alldredge, Assistant Archivist of the United States, and outgoing pres- 
ident of the society, formally presented the trophy to Governor Terry 
Sanford in a ceremony in the Governor's office in Raleigh. Those attend- 
ing included Mr. McDaniel Lewis, Chairman of the Executive Board of 
the department; Dr. Crittenden; and Mr. Jones. The trophy will be dis- 
played in the department until next year's annual meeting of the society, 
and a smaller cup will be retained permanently. 

Mr. Lewis and Dr. Alldredge spoke at a staff meeting in the department 
prior to the ceremony. 

Mr. Jones discussed North Carolina's archival-records management 
program at a Documents Workshop at the Institute of Government in 
Chapel Hill, September 11, and the Watauga Club in Raleigh, October 20. 
His dissertation, "The Public Archives of North Carolina, 1663-1903," 
was accepted at Duke University on September 22 and the Ph.D. degree 
will be awarded in June, 1965. He and Admiral A. M. Patterson, Assistant 
State Archivist (Local Records), represented the department at the 
Society of American Archivists meeting in Austin, Texas, October 6-10. 

Mr. Jones attended a meeting of the Governor's Commission on Library 
Resources in Raleigh, November 16. He wrote a unit titled "Manuscript 
Collections in North Carolina" which was incorporated in the Commis- 
sion's report, Resources of North Carolina Libraries, edited by Dr. Robert 
B. Downs of the University of Illinois and published in Raleigh in No- 

In the Archives, a restudy of several large record groups resulted in 
their rearrangement and the preparation of new finding aids. Included 
were the records of the State Department of Archives and History, the 
Colonial General Court, the North Carolina Railroad Company, and the 
North Carolina Memorial Building Commission. An inventory of election 
returns has been completed and abstracts are being prepared for selected 
races. A significant accession comprised seven letters written in 1864-1865 
by R. H. Bacot, a Confederate naval officer who served on the C.S.S. 
"Neuse." The letters were a gift of the North Carolina Confederate Cen- 
tennial Commission. 

Registered researchers during the quarter ended September 30 num- 
bered 1,144, and 1,017 letters requiring reference to the Search Room 
were answered. Copies furnished the public totaled 1,521, plus 11,725 feet 
of microfilm. During the period 25,490 pages of deteriorating records 
were restored by the laminating process, and 1,368 reels (135,240 linear 
feet) of microfilm were processed. 

Mr. C. F. W. Coker, Assistant State Archivist (Archives), and Miss 
Beth Crabtree, Archivist II, recently spoke to several groups in North 

Mrs. Frances T. Council, Archivist II, resigned effective October 16 
prior to her move to Washington, D.C. Mr. Don R. Nichols, a graduate of 
Lenoir-Rhyne College and a former teacher, joined the staff on temporary 
assignment October 5. 

Historical News 127 

The Local Records Section has completed the microfilming of the 
permanently valuable records of Randolph and Richmond counties, the 
forty-fourth and forty-fifth counties to be completed since the project 
began in 1959. Section operators are now at work in Buncombe, Guilford, 
and Mecklenburg counties. The county commissioners of Buncombe County 
have created the position of records administrator, the first such position 
in the counties. 

Original records, varying in quantity and types, were received recently 
from Buncombe, Forsyth, Franklin, and Richmond counties. A list of the 
newly acquired records is available for use in the Search Room. A large 
group of Tyrrell County records has been arranged and finding aids pre- 

Mr. Nash A. Isenhower resigned as Clerk III (Microfilm Camera Op- 
erator) on September 18 to return to college, and he was succeeded on 
October 12 by Mr. William B. Batton, a graduate of King College. 

In the State Records Section, a records retention and disposal schedule 
was approved for the Department of Community Colleges, and a files 
reorganization in the Driver Education and Accident Records Division 
of the Department of Motor Vehicles and a correspondence survey in the 
same department's Registration Division were completed. 

The annual report of records holdings submitted to Governor Sanford 
revealed that as of June 30, 1964, there were 95,141 cubic feet of records 
in state agencies in Raleigh, 2,632 cubic feet in the licensing and exam- 
ining boards, 12,719 cubic feet in the institutions, and 32,891 cubic feet 
in the Records Center. During the quarter ending September 30, 2,263 
cubic feet of records were received in the center and disposition made 
of 1,225 cubic feet. The staff performed 13,497 references during the 
same period. 

Mr. T. W. Mitchell, Assistant State Archivist (State Records), spoke 
on records management at the Institute of the Graduate School of Library 
Science, University of Illinois, at Allerton Park, Illinois, on November 2. 

Division of Historic Sites 

In 1960 the Richardson Foundation of Greensboro and New York 
granted $50,000 to the Department of Archives and History for the pres- 
ervation of historic sites. More than 14 projects received funds from this 
challenge grant. The foundation recently made another grant of $100,000 
to the department to be disbursed in 1965, 1966, and 1967. This sum also 
will be used as challenge grants to local preservation and restoration 
projects in North Carolina under specified criteria. Interested local groups 
may obtain further information from the department. 

On October 26 in Greensboro Mr. H. Smith Richardson, Greensboro 
and New York, Chairman of the Board of the Richardson Foundation, 
and several other representatives of the foundation met with Dr. Critten- 
den and other department representatives to discuss general principles 
and procedures. After the meeting two of the Richardson representatives 
and several staff members from the Division of Historic Sites toured 

128 The North Carolina Historical Review 

historic sites from Winston-Salem and Salisbury in the west to New 
Bern, Bath, and Edenton in the east. 

Mr. Tarlton attended the meetings in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, of the 
American Association for State and Local History on October 27-28. Mr. 
Tarlton is a member of the council of the association and is the south- 
eastern representative of the awards committee. 

On October 16 the Historical Highway Marker Advisory Committee 
met in Chapel Hill and approved 13 inscriptions for markers. 

The Historical Halifax Restoration Association's Board of Directors 
met with department representatives in Raleigh on November 4. Mr. 
Ray S. Wilkinson told of plans for future development, and arrangements 
were discussed for the observance of Halifax Day in April, 1965. Mr. 
Fletcher Gregory, Sr., has donated approximately ten acres of land to the 
historic area of Halifax. 

The Historic Sites Advisory Committee met on November 5 in Raleigh. 
The committee endorsed procedures for administering the recent $100,000 
grant to the department by the Richardson Foundation. 

The Cherokee Council of the Boy Scouts of America in Alamance 
County held its annual camporee at Alamance Battleground State His- 
toric Site on October 9-11 with 487 boys attending. Mr. Wayne Smith, 
Historic Site Assistant, presented a slide-lecture to the group. 

Mr. James E. Ivey, Historic Site Assistant at the Charles B. Ay cock 
Birthplace, reports a 100 per cent increase in visitation this year over 
last year. Work progresses on the stables ; and the Fremont Garden Club 
has planted bulbs at the site. 

A chain link fence is to be installed around the Gunboat "Neuse" at the 
Caswell Memorial Park near Kinston. The "Neuse" was not damaged 
during the recent flooding in eastern North Carolina, although water 
reached the bottom of the vessel. Mr. H. C. Casey, caretaker of the "Neuse," 
will serve as a guide on week ends. 

Several patriotic and civic groups visited the Historic Bath State His- 
toric Site. The Historic Bath Commission met in Raleigh on October 6. 
Work progresses at the Bonner House property with a number of out- 
side improvements. 

The Smithfield Herald on September 15 featured pictures and the story 
of the Visitor Center-Museum, which was opened recently at the Benton- 
ville Battleground State Historic Site. Mr. Jack Rose, Historic Site As- 
sistant, states that the recent publicity has increased visitation greatly. 
On November 2 Mr. W. K. Dorsey, Travel Supervisor of the Cape Fear 
Technical Institute, met with a group at Bentonville to prepare a travel 
film on the Bentonville site. 

Nearly 200 persons attended the annual meeting of the North Carolina 
Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy at the Brunswick 
Town State Historic Site on October 13. In a dedication ceremony Dr. 
Crittenden accepted, for the Department of Archives and History, three 
foot-bridges which had been donated by the above organization. Mr. 
Stanley A. South, Archaeologist, spoke on "Fort Anderson, 1861-1865." 
In the afternoon a memorial service was held inside the ruins of St. 

Historical News 129 

Philips Church. The site of the courthouse ruins is being excavated at 
Brunswick Town by Mr. South and Mr. William G. Faulk, Jr., Historic 
Site Assistant. 

According to Mr. William H. Reid, Historic Site Assistant at the Fort 
Fisher State Historic Site, approximately 400 feet of the palisade fence 
has been installed, or about one-third of the total length. With the ex- 
ception of materials being used, the palisade is an exact replica of the 
original and is being placed near the original site according to archae- 
ological findings. Bids for the Fort Fisher visitor center-museum were 
opened on October 13, and contracts will be awarded in the near future. 
Mr. South attended the fifth annual Conference on Historic Site Archae- 
ology at New Orleans on November 5. He also attended the Southeastern 
Archaeological Conference while there. 

Bids on the construction of a visitor center-museum at the Zebulon B. 
Vance Birthplace State Historic Site were opened October 8, but proved 
to exceed original estimates of the cost of the building. Architect's plans 
for the structure were revised and construction work was expected to 
begin shortly. 

After an inspection visit to Fort Defiance, near Lenoir, by Messrs. 
Tarlton, A. L. Honeycutt, Jr., and Robert 0. Conway, of the Division of 
Historic Sites, the members of the Caldwell County Historical Society 
voted to restore this historic house, built by General William Lenoir. The 
society later obtained an option on the property, which includes many of 
the original furnishings of the Lenoir family. 

On October 28 a special committee which met in Asheville voted to 
incorporate for the purpose of establishing a Museum of the Southern 
Highlands. The project was suggested by a member of the division staff. 

Division of Museums 

Correspondence with teachers of North Carolina history resulted in 
the organization of 50 new Tarheel Junior Historian Clubs. Club mem- 
berships are renewed each year and new clubs are invited to join through- 
out the school term. 

Mrs. Joye E. Jordan, Museums Administrator, and Mr. Samuel P. 
Townsend, Administrative Assistant, attended the annual meeting of the 
Southeastern Museums Conference in Savannah, Georgia, October 21-24. 

The Tarheel Junior Historian Association was represented by Mr. 
Townsend at the Junior Historian Directors Conference in Newark, New 
Jersey, September 30-October 2. 

Mrs. Sue Todd, Registrar, attended the annual meeting of the Early 
American Industries Association in Wilmington, Delaware, October 8-11. 

A new series of programs to be held the fourth Sunday of each month 
was begun September 27 when Mr. Tony Zurek and Dr. J. Keith Lawson 
of Chemstrand Research Center, Inc., presented a demonstration and 
discussion of glass blowing. The second program, October 25, featured 
Mrs. William J. Newberry who displayed and discussed dolls from four 
collections. Public response resulted in overflow crowds on both occasions. 

130 The North Carolina Historical Review 

New exhibits regarding the Civil War in North Carolina were com- 
pleted and installed in the Mobile Museum of History. The unit resumed 
its schedule across the state October 29 after an initial showing at the 
North Carolina State Fair. 

Construction and installation of exhibits were completed at Bentonville 
Historic Site Visitor Center-Museum. 

The building for the future Museum of the Albemarle near Elizabeth 
City was designed, and drawings were submitted. Meetings were also held 
concerning the museum. 

Items from the 1900 lingerie collection were displayed at the Arts Fes- 
tival in Smithfield September 17. In connection with the festival two 
staff members modeled selected costumes on the noon news program of 
WRAL-TV which promoted the festival through the director of women's 
activities, Bette Elliott. 

Division of Publications 

Mrs. Violet W. Quay assumes the responsibility of Editorial Associate 
with this issue of The North Carolina Historical Review. Mrs. Quay was 
promoted to the position in the division from her former employment on 
the staff of the Colonial Records Project. She succeeded Mrs. Elizabeth 
W. Wilborn who received a promotion and transferred to the Division 
of Historic Sites. Mrs. Nancy S. Bartlett joined the staff of the division 
in September as an editorial assistant on the Sanford Papers, which are 
being edited by Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor. 

The Editorial Board of the State Department of Archives and History 
met on September 23 in the office of the editor. All members were present 
and the entire program of the Division of Publications was reviewed. 
Following adjournment, the members were given a tour of the new offices 
and storage areas used by the division. 

For the third quarter, total receipts were $5,271 with $3,864 being 
retained by the department and $1,407 being turned over to the North 
Carolina Literary and Historical Association. Publications distributed 
included 762 documentary volumes; 12 copies of the Index to The North 
Carolina Historical Review ; 47 letter books of governors ; 109 small books ; 
2,651 pamphlets, charts, and maps (including 243 Tercentenary pamph- 
lets) ; 7,740 leaflets and brochures; and 5,389 copies of the list of publi- 
cations available from the department. In addition to this total of 16,710 
were 2,129 copies of the Autumn, 1964, issue of The Review, 2,027 copies 
of the July issue and 2,269 copies of the September issue of Carolina 

Plans are being made to issue The Papers of John Willis Ellis in two 
volumes early in 1965; each volume will be $5 plus the usual handling 
charge. Orders should be sent to the Division of Publications. 

A conference with Bishop Kenneth G. Hamilton, who is editing the 
Moravian Records, and other representatives of the Moravian Archives 
was held on October 28 in Dr. Crittenden's office. Tentative plans are 

Historical News 131 

being made to publish two additional volumes in this series, making a 
total of 11, so as to include recently discovered significant records of the 
Heifer Conferenz. 

A new publication is a single sheet showing pictures of the governors 
of North Carolina with their terms of office. The sheet is available for 
50 cents, plus 10 cents handling charge, from the Division of Publications. 

Copies of the 1962-1964 Biennial Report of the department are avail- 
able to interested persons. Copies will be sent upon receipt of a 10-cent 
handling charge ; orders should be sent to the Division of Publications. 

Colonial Records Project 

The inventory of Colonial court records in the custody of the State 
Department of Archives and History has been completed. All higher court 
records and substantial samples of lower court records have been inven- 
toried. The data thus obtained will be used in assembling court records to 
be published and in acquiring the information on the legal system of the 
colony that is necessary to edit court records. 

The inventory of documents pertinent to the project held by the Vir- 
ginia Historical Society also has been completed. The records reported 
include correspondence between the governors of the two colonies regard- 
ing piracy, Indians, and the boundary line. Depositions of Indians and 
white settlers relevant to the boundary line, memorandums on prepara- 
tions for the boundary survey, accounts of travels and explorations in 
North Carolina, and manuscripts of William Byrd's History of the Divid- 
ing Line and Journey to the Land of Eden also are in the collections of 
the Virginia Historical Society. The more important records relating to 
North Carolina are in the Lee-Ludwell Papers, the William Byrd Letter 
Books, and the Westover Papers. 


On August 1-2 Mr. Norman Larson, Executive Secretary, met in 
Charleston with the South Carolina Confederate Centennial Commission 
to discuss its participation in the Averasboro centennial program. The 
Harnett County Centennial Committee and representatives from South 
Carolina's commission met with Mr. Larson on September 24 and again 
on October 23 to plan for the Averasboro program. 

In the re-enactment of the Battle of Jonesboro, Georgia, August 28-30, 
North Carolina was represented by Mr. Larson, Mr. Robert W. Jones, 
Public Information Officer, and Colonel W. Cliff Elder, commission mem- 
ber from Burlington. 

On October 1 Dr. Crittenden and the staff of the commission held a 
finance committee meeting in Durham to discuss the Andrew Johnson- 
Bennett Place commemoration. 

On October 13 Mr. Larson participated in a United Daughters of the 
Confederacy dedication program at Fort Anderson. He addressed the 
group at its Wrightsville Beach Convention October 14. 

132 The North Carolina Historical Review 

At a meeting of the Confederate States Centennial Conference in Mont- 
gomery, Alabama, October 15-18, Mr. Larson presented an illustrated 
talk on the Gunboat "Neuse" and related recovery efforts of the local 
centennial committee. Several commission members attended the Alabama 

The fourteenth plenary meeting of the North Carolina Confederate 
Centennial Commission was held in Raleigh, October 28. 

Mr. Larson met in Asheville with Colonel Paul Rockwell on October 
30-31 to discuss motion picture production and centennial plans for the 
Battle of Asheville. 

Mr. Larson and Mr. Jones represented the commission at numerous 
meetings and special events throughout the state during recent weeks. 


Dr. Henry S. Stroupe, head of the Department of History of Wake 
Forest College, reports the following faculty changes : Dr. David L. Smiley 
has been promoted to professor; Dr. Thomas E. Mullen has been pro- 
moted to associate professor ; Dr. Robert C. Gregory has been granted a 
leave of absence for the 1964-1965 academic year to participate in the 
Cooperative Program in the Humanities at Duke University and the Uni- 
versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Mr. Thomas S. Morgan, Jr., 
instructor, will replace Dr. Gregory for the year. 

Dr. W. H. Plemmons of Appalachian State Teachers College announces 
the promotion of Mr. William Fife Troutman, Jr., from associate pro- 
fessor to professor of political science. 

Dr. Sarah M. Lemmon, chairman of the Department of History and 
Political Science at Meredith College, moderated a 30-minute panel, 
"Election Year, 1964" for TV classes in government and United States 
history on WUNC-TV October 30 and November 2. She served on a visiting 
team to Pembroke State College, November 8-11, and was assigned to 
report on general education and social studies teacher education for the 
new teacher certification plan of the State Department of Public Instruc- 
tion. Mr. Thomas C. Parramore has completed his doctoral work at The 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; the Ph.D. degree will be 
awarded in June, 1965. 

Dr. Richard L. Watson, Jr., chairman of the History Department at 
Duke University, served as chairman of the program committee for the 
annual meeting of the Southern Historical Association in Little Rock, 
Arkansas, November 12-14. Reading papers at the meeting were Dr. 
Robert I. Crane, "The Military in Independent India"; Dr. Mark Van 
Aken, "Latin-American Student Movements in Uruguay" ; and Dr. War- 
ren Lerner, "Soviet Occupation Policy During the Russo-Polish War, 
1920." Dr. Robert F. Durden was a member of the nominating committee. 

Historical News 133 

Dr. Robert H. Woody was elected to the executive council and an alumnus 
of Duke University, Dr. Hugh T. Lefler of The University of North Caro- 
lina at Chapel Hill, was elected vice-president (to become president in 

The Commonwealth-Studies Center of Duke University, to celebrate 
its tenth birthday, organized, with the Institute of Commonwealth 
Studies of the University of London, a conference on "A Decade of the 
Commonwealth" at Bellagio, Italy, June 28- July 4. Dr. William B. Ham- 
ilton read a paper on "The Transfer of Power in Historical Perspective" 
and is co-editing the papers from the conference for publication in the 
Duke Center's series. 

The Cooperative Program in the Humanities of Duke University and 
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has several Fellows from 
various institutions spending the year at Duke pursuing their own re- 
search and writing. 

Dr. John S. Curtiss read a paper on "The Diplomacy of the Crimean 
War" at the Southern Conference on Slavic Studies, New Orleans, October 
16; Dr. Warren Lerner was named chairman of the program committee. 
Dr. Robert I. Crane published "Teaching about India in the High Schools," 
in The High School Journal (May, 1964) ; "Technique and Method in 
Social History," in 0. P. Bhatnagar (ed.) , Studies in Indian Social History 
(Allahabad University Press, 1964) ; and "Indian History for the Under- 
graduate," in W. T. de Bary and A. T. Embree (eds.), Approaches to 
Asian Civilization (Columbia University Press, 1964). Dr. Donald G. 
Gillin had an article, " 'Peasant Nationalism' in the History of Chinese 
Communism," in The Journal of Asian Studies, XXIII (February, 1964), 
and Dr. Irving B. Holley, Jr., published Buying Aircraft: Materiel Pro- 
curement for the Army Air Forces (Government Printing Office, 1964). 
Dr. Anne Firor Scott published "After Suffrage : Southern Women in the 
Twenties" in The Journal of Southern History, XXX (August, 1964) , and 
submitted the report of the Governor's Commission on the Status of 
Women in North Carolina, of which she was chairman, to Governor 
Terry Sanford November 24. Dr. Alan K. Manchester's British Preemi- 
nence in Brazil (The University of North Carolina Press, 1933) has been 
reprinted by Octagon Books, Inc., of New York. Dr. Richard L. Watson's 
"American History: A Review of Recent Literature" appeared in Social 
Education, XVIII (October, 1964) ; Dr. Robert F. Durden published "The 
Battle of the Standards in 1896 and North Carolina's Place in the Main- 
stream" in The South Atlantic Quarterly, LXIII (Summer, 1964). 

Dr. William J. Block, Department of History and Political Science, is 
1964-1965 chairman of the Faculty Senate at North Carolina State of 
The University of North Carolina at Raleigh. Dr. Burton F. Beers is 
serving as chairman of the faculty of the School of General Studies. Dr. 
Ralph W. Greenlaw directed a summer program in Raleigh training 70 
Peace Corps volunteers for community development and forestry projects 

134 The North Carolina Historical Review 

in southern Chile. Dr. Abraham Holtzman spoke to the Duke University 
faculty-graduate student seminar in political science on "Problems Facing 
Executive Lobbyists in Dealing with the Committee Systems of Con- 
gress." He was also a member of a panel on "Politics in the South," at a 
meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, at Durham, in 

Dr. Herbert R. Paschal, Jr., director of the Department of History, 
East Carolina College, announces the following changes in the faculty: 
Mr. Wyatt Brown promoted from instructor to assistant professor; Dr. 
Charles L. Price from associate professor to professor; Dr. Joseph F. 
Steelman from associate professor to professor. New faculty members 
include Professor Loren K. Campion, Central and Eastern European 
history; Professor Thomas C. Herndon, Ancient and Medieval history; 
Professor Elaine M. Paul, Modern European history. Essays in American 
History, Volume I of East Carolina College Publications in History, 1964, 
contains essays by six members of the social studies faculty. Dr. Steelman 
was chairman of a session on "Progressivism in the South" at the meeting 
of the Southern Historical Association, Little Rock, Arkansas, November 
12-14. Dr. Paul Murray was chairman of the R. D. W. Connor Award 
Committee of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association for 
1964. Professor Thomas C. Herndon wrote a paper, "A Note on Medieval 
Wound Treatment and Bartholemeo dal Sarasin (fl. 1944)," in the Jour- 
nal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 1964. Mr. Herndon 
and the late Loren C. MacKinney were co-authors of an article "Abnormal 
Cranial Sutures in Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Anatomical 
Treaties: The Evolution of the Hippocratic-Aristotelian-Galenic-Vesalian 
Tradition," in Storia E Letteratura, 1964. Professor Kathleen E. Dunlop 
wrote three articles which appeared in UNESCO, A Dictionary of the 
Social Sciences, in October. Dr. Richard C. Todd was elected national 
vice-president of Phi Sigma Pi, national honorary and professional fra- 
ternity, for 1964-1966. 


The Executive Committee of the North Carolina Society of County and 
Local Historians held a luncheon meeting at Chapel Hill September 13. 
Plans were made for a tour of Anson County, October 18, and for the 
annual meeting of the society, December 5, in Raleigh. 

The Historical Society of North Carolina met at Duke University on 
November 6. Papers were presented by Dr. Robert N. Elliott, Jr., Dr. 
Joseph Morrison, and Dr. Marvin L. Skaggs. Dr. Henry S. Stroupe was 
elected president; Dr. Stuart Noblin, vice-president; and Dr. H. H. Cun- 
ningham, secretary-treasurer. 

The Department has received copies of the Report of John R. Woodard, 
Jr., Director of the North Carolina Baptist Historical Collection, and the 

Historical News 135 

Minutes of the North Carolina Baptist Historical Committee meeting 
held at Wake Forest College, Winston-Salem, August 18, 1964. 

Two copper engravings, dated 1878, of the area west of Morehead City- 
northward along the coast to Ocracoke, covering the outer banks, are on 
loan to the Beaufort Historical Association. The plates were used by the 
Coast and Geodetic Survey. Dr. John Costlow, president of the associa- 
tion, is seeking six other engravings used to print charts of the 1850's. 
Dr. Costlow announced the appointment of Mr. John Mease as chairman 
of the restoration buildings and grounds committee. 

The Carteret County Historical Society re-elected its entire slate of 
officers on October 17. The officers are : Mr. John R. Gibson, Cedar Point, 
president; Mr. Grayden Paul, Beaufort, vice-president; Mr. Thomas Res- 
pess, Beaufort, secretary; and Mr. F. C. Salisbury, Morehead City, treas- 
urer. Mrs. Margaret Simmons read a paper on Colonial Beaufort prepared 
in 1963 by Mr. Charles L. Paul. Mr. Salisbury gave a report on the dis- 
tribution of historical papers throughout the county. 

The Pasquotank Historical Society is sponsoring a column, "Albe- 
marle's Historical Genealogy Researcher," in the Elizabeth City Advance. 
Written by Mr. E. 0. (Jack) Baum, the column discusses various events 
in the history of the area. The column for August 10, for example, was 
about shipwrecks on the North Carolina coast. 

The Perquimans County Historical Society met on September 28 in 
the Perquimans Library. 

The Bertie County Historical Association met October 29. Officers 
elected were: Mrs. M. B. Gillam, Sr., president; Mr. Francis Speight, 
Miss Stella Phelps and Mr. Wayland Jenkins, Jr., vice-presidents; Mrs. 
Walter Bond, secretary; Mr. Thomas Norfleet, treasurer; Dr. W. P. Ja- 
cocks, executive adviser. Mrs. Gillam gave the program on "The Old 
Houses of Windsor and Some of the People Who Have Lived in Them." 

The New Bern Historical Society met October 8. Plans for 1965 were 
discussed and the following officers were elected : Mr. R. L. Stallings, Jr., 
president; Mrs. Clarence Beasley, vice-president; Mrs. Phillip Steiner, 
secretary; Mr. R. A. (Del) Ipock, treasurer. Mr. John R. Taylor, who 
has served as president for the past eleven years, will be finance chairman 
for the coming year. 

During the latter part of August, the Tryon Palace Commission re- 
ported visitors from 33 states, the District of Columbia, England, Austria, 
Mexico, and New Zealand. Paid admissions since the formal opening of 
the palace have totaled 162,407, including 118,000 adults and 43,807 

136 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The Catawba County Historical Association re-elected all of its officers 
at the Newton meeting, October 9. The officers are : Mr. Thomas Warlick, 
president; Mr. S. Samuel Rowe and Mrs. Rome E. Jones, vice-presidents; 
Mrs. Roy Smyre, secretary; Mrs. Frances J. Snyder, treasurer; Mrs. 
Marguerite W. May, custodian ; Mr. J. Paul Wagner, historian. Dr. J. E. 
Hodges presented a short historical talk to the 50 members present. 

The Yancey County Historical Association met October 2 at the Li- 
brary in Burnsville; Mr. 0. W. Wilson presided. The purpose of the 
organization is to gather historical material for a comprehensive history 
of Yancey County. Persons are asked to send information on such topics 
as early settlers, nationalities, churches, schools, business, industry, archi- 
tecture, geology, and Indian wars. 

The Mecklenburg Historical Association has re-elected the Reverend 
John S. Staton president. Other officers elected were Mr. James B. Vogler 
and Mr. Irwin Belk, vice-presidents; Mrs. Frank Alford, secretary; and 
the Reverend Leon Adkinson, treasurer. Mr. Victor C. King was ap- 
pointed historian, and Mr. Adkinson, chaplain. The association will meet 
the third Monday in January, March, May, and October. 

A program and plaque dedication honoring John Berry of Hillsborough, 
early builder-architect (1798-1870), was presented by the Hillsborough 
Historical Society September 11. The 32" x 40" bronze plaque was pre- 
sented to Orange County by Mrs. Alfred G. Engstrom, president of the 
society, and was accepted by Mr. Donald M. Stanford, chairman of the 
Orange County commissioners. Dr. Henry S. Stroupe, of Wake Forest 
College, delivered "A Tribute to John Berry," and Professor John V. 
Allcott, of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, gave an illus- 
trated lecture on "John Berry's Hillsborough Architecture." The 463- 
member society held its third annual meeting October 9. Officers were 
elected; the budget of $5,700 was approved; and reports of officers and 
committees were heard. The program featured a colored slide lecture by 
Mrs. George B. Daniel, Jr., of Chapel Hill, on "Early Hillsboro and 
Orange County Furniture, 1760-1830." 

The Davie Poplar Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolu- 
tion, Chapel Hill, has placed a bronze plaque at Ayr Mount, the one 
hundred and sixty year-old brick home of the Kirklands in Hillsboro. 

The Historic Hillsborough Commission met October 14 at the Colonial 
Inn in Hillsboro for dinner and a business session. Mrs. Alfred G. Eng- 
strom replaced Dr. Robert J. Murphy as chairman of the commission. 
Dr. Crittenden spoke briefly, and a discussion followed. 

The Lower Cape Fear Historical Society met October 30. Mr. Lee Adler 
II spoke on "The Historic Restoration Program in Savannah," and showed 

Historical News 137 

pictures of both interiors and exteriors of many Savannah homes that 
have been preserved in recent years. 

The Bladen County Historical Society meeting of October 30 in the 
Bladen County courthouse was presided over by President Finley Rogers. 
Mrs. John D. Beatty, historian, spoke on "Collecting Bladen County Rec- 
ords" ; progress reports were given on Harmony Hall and the Bladen 
County history. 

Dr. Julian C. Yoder presided at the Western North Carolina Historical 
Association's fall quarterly meeting October 24 at the Pack Memorial 
Library. A film, "The Vanishing Frontier," dealing with changes in the 
Appalachians, was shown. Mrs. Alan Wallace of Brevard presented a 
paper on "Naturalists in Western North Carolina." 

The Wake County Historical Society met in Raleigh on November 15. 
The Carolina Charter Tercentenary film, "Road to Carolina," was shown. 
Announcement was made of a $25 award to be given by the society yearly 
to the school having the best Junior Historian Club in Wake County. 

The Pitt County Historical Society, at its November 5 meeting, elected 
Dr. Robert Lee Humber president. 

The Haywood County Historical Society staged an old-fashioned dress 
pageant November 10 in the courthouse at Waynesville. Costumes dated 
back to the Civil War era. 

Mrs. Elizabeth H. Hummel, president of the Granville County Histori- 
cal Society, presided at the meeting October 29 at the courthouse. Projects 
for 1965 include preparation of plots of all church cemeteries in Granville 
County, indexing the oldest records in the office of the Granville County 
Clerk of Superior Court, and obtaining additional historical markers for 
the county. 

The Franklin County Historical Society held an organizational meeting 
in Louisburg October 29. Mr. C. F. W. Coker, Assistant State Archivist 
(Archives) , spoke on the work of the State Department of Archives and 

After an expenditure of some $10,500, the McDowell County Historical 
Society opened the Carson House, near Marion, October 4, at a historic 
site and county museum. The Carson House was the home of several 
members of the Carson family who were leaders in the early history of 
western North Carolina. 

The history of Edgecombe County courthouses from Colonial days to 
the present was interestingly traced by Mr. Don Gilliam, Jr., clerk of 

138 The North Carolina Historical Review 

superior court, at the meeting of the Edgecombe Historical Society, No- 
vember 10, at the new courthouse in Tarboro. 

Dr. Colin Spencer presided over the meeting of the Moore County His- 
torical Association, November 24, at the Southern Pines Country Club. 
Mrs. Jack McPaul's group of costumed singers presented a program of 

The Brunswick County Historical Society met November 9 at the Sa- 
cred Heart Parrish House at Southport. Mrs. M. H. Rourk was re-elected 
president; Mrs. Ed Driscoll of Southport, vice-president; and Miss Helen 
Taylor of Winnabow, secretary-treasurer. The celebration of the two 
hundredth anniversary of the founding of Brunswick County was ob- 
served on November 15. 


Grants-in-aid are available from the Harry S. Truman Library Insti- 
tute, up to a limit of $1,000 each, for projects involving the Truman 
Administration and the history and nature of the presidency of the 
United States. Applicants should write to Dr. Philip C. Brooks, Director, 
Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Missouri, for information and 
application forms. 

The University of Delaware, in co-operation with the Eleutherian Mills- 
Hagley Foundation, will award two or more Hagley Museum Fellowships 
in April, 1965, for the academic years 1965-1967. Recipients of these 
grants take graduate work in history and related fields at the University 
of Delaware and will receive training in museum work at the Hagley 
Museum, Wilmington, Delaware. Each fellowship carries an annual sti- 
pend of $2,000, and is renewable upon satisfactory completion of the 
first year. Applications should be received by March 5, 1965. For further 
details, address the Chairman, Department of History, University of 
Delaware, Newark, Delaware. 

The National Trust for Historic Preservation will hold a two-week 
seminar for historic museum associates February 7-20, 1965, at Woodlawn 
Plantation, Mount Vernon, Virginia. The seminar, which is limited to 
14 persons, is being offered for the third year and will include lectures 
by members of the staffs of the National Trust, Smithsonian Institution, 
National Park Service, National Gallery of Art, and other organizations 
in the Washington area. Further information may be obtained from Dr. 
William J. Murtagh, 815 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20006. 


The Editorial Board of The North Carolina Historical Review is 
interested in articles and documents pertaining to the history of North 
Carolina and adjacent states. Articles on the history of other sections 
may be submitted, and, if there are ties with North Carolinians or 
events significant in the history of this state, the Editorial Board will 
give them careful consideration. Articles on any aspect of North Caro- 
lina history are suitable subject matter for The Review, but materials 
that are primarily genealogical are not accepted. 

In considering articles, the Editorial Board gives careful attention 
to the sources used, the form followed in the footnotes, and style in 
which the article is written, and the originality of the material and its 
interpretation. Clarity of thought and general interest of the article 
are of importance, though these two considerations would not, of 
course, outweigh inadequate use of sources, incomplete coverage of 
the subject, and inaccurate citations. 

Persons desiring to submit articles for The North Carolina Historical 
Review should request a copy of The Editors Handbook, which may 
be obtained free of charge from the Division of Publications of the De- 
partment of Archives and History. The Handbook contains informa- 
tion on footnote citations and other pertinent facts needed by writers 
for The Review. Each author should follow the suggestions made in 
The Editors Handbook and should use back issues of The North Caro- 
lina Historical Review as a further guide to the accepted style and 

All copy should be double-spaced; footnotes should be typed on 
separate sheets at the end of the article. The author should submit an 
original and a carbon copy of the article; he should retain a second 
carbon for his own reference. Articles accepted by the Editorial Board 
become the property of The North Carolina Historical Review and 
may not have been or be published elsewhere. The author should in- 
clude his professional title in the covering letter accompanying his 

Following acceptance of an article, publication will be scheduled in 
accordance with the established policy of the Editorial Board. Since 
usually a large backlog of material is on hand, there will ordinarily be 
a fairly long period between acceptance and publication. 

The editors are also interested in receiving for review books relating 
to the history of North Carolina and the surrounding area. 

Articles and books for review should be sent to the Division of 
Publications, State Department of Archives and History, Box 1881, 
Raleigh, North Carolina. 

North Carolina State Library. 



7>& %»it6 frnditux 

^V ^;* *~ •- - vn-u -— « 

-< •' 

5/****? W5 

The North Carolina Historical Review 

Christopher Crittenden, Editor in Chief 

Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor 
Mrs. Violet W. Quay, Editorial Associate 


Miss Sarah M. Lemmon Miss Mattie Russell 

William S. Powell George M. Stephens, Sr. 

Henry S. Stroupe 


McDaniel Lewis, Chairman 

Miss Gertrude Sprague Carraway Ralph P. Hanes 

Robert F. Durden Josh L. Horne 

Fletcher M. Green Edward W. Phifer 

Christopher Crittenden, Director 

This review was established in January, 192b, «s a medium of publication and dis- 
cussion of history in North Carolina. It is issued to other institutions by exchange, 
but to the general public by subscription only. The regular price is $h.00 per year. 
Members of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association, Inc., for which 
the annual dues are $5.00, receive this publication without further payment. Back 
numbers still in print are available for $1.00 per number. Out-of-print numbers may be 
obtained on microfilm from University Microfilms, SIS North First Street, Ann Arbor, 
Michigan. Persons desiring to quote from this publication may do so without special 
permission from the editors provided full credit is given to The North Carolina 
Historical Review. The Review is published quarterly by the State Department of 
Archives and History, Education Building, Corner of Edenton and Salisbury Streets, 
Raleigh. Second class postage paid at Raleigh, North Carolina. 

COVER — Sherman's men are shown advancing under difficulties as they 
marched from Savannah to Bentonville. From files of State Department 
of Archives and History. For an article on Sherman's march through 
North Carolina, see pages 192 to 207. 

7^ %yit& (faiofata, 

Volume XLII Published in April, 1965 Number 2 



Charles L. Paul 

A MORIBUND PARTY, 1908-1910 153 

Joseph F. Steelman 


James W. Patton 


George V. Taylor 


John G. Barrett 

H. G. Bradshaw 


Norman Larson 


William S. Powell 




Harris, Southern Savory, by Mary Lynch Johnson 232 

Jocher, Johnson, Simpson, Vance, Folk, Region, and Society: 

Selected Papers of Howard W. Odum, by S. H. Hobbs, Jr 233 

Pomeroy and Yoho, North Carolina Lands: Ownership, Use, and 

Management of Forest and Related Lands, by David Thomas .... 235 

Essays in American History, by Oliver Orr 236 

Morton, Robert Carter of Nomini Hall: A Virginia Tobacco 

Planter of The Eighteenth Century, by Robert W. Ramsey 237 

Bonner, A History of Georgia Agriculture, 1732-1860, 

by D. W. Colvard 238 

Shadgett, The Republican Party in Georgia: From Reconstruction 

Through 1900, by Robert F. Durden 239 

Rogers, Thomas County During the Civil War, by Edward M. 

Steel, Jr 240 

Wish, Slavery in the South: A Collection of Contemporary Accounts 
of the System of Plantation Slavery in the Southern United 
States in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, 
by Philip Davidson 241 

McPherson, The Sruggle for Equality: Abolitionists and the Negro 

in the Civil War and Reconstruction, by Clifton H. Johnson .... 242 

Stephenson, Southern History in The Making: Pioneer Historians 

of The South, by H. G. Jones 244 

Tindall, The Pursuit of Southern History: Presidential Addresses 
of The Southern Historical Association, 1935-1963, by Thornton 
W. Mitchell 246 

Ambrose, Upton And The Army, by Joseph H. Park 247 

Fischer, Lincoln's Gadfly, Adam Gurowski, by Richard N. Current . . . 249 

Lacy, The Meaning of The American Revolution, by 

Don Higginbotham 250 

Frank, Justice Daniel Dissenting: A Biography of Peter V. Daniel, 

1784-1860, by Richard D. Younger .251 

Filler, History of The People of The United States: From The 

Revolution to The Civil War, by Robert N. Elliott 252 

Koch, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of The American 

Experiment And A Free Society, by Noble E. Cunningham, Jr. . .253 

Albright, A History of The Protestant Episcopal Church, 

by William S. Powell 254 

Other Recent Publications 255 

By Charles L. Paul* 

Though the first attempt to plant an English colony in America 
took place in North Carolina as early as 1585, it was three-quarters 
of a century before the first permanent white settlers came into the 
colony. When they did come, they came from Virginia rather than 
directly from England or the European continent. Just when the 
first permanent settlers entered what is now North Carolina has not 
been definitely established. By 1660, however, there were settlers on 
the Chowan River. After the first settlers arrived, there was, accord- 
ing to B. D. W. Connor, "no cessation in the slow but steady flow 
of settlers into the Albemarle region." * On March 24, 1663, Charles 
II of England granted a charter for a part of the new world which 
ultimately included the new settlement on the Chowan Biver to 
eight prominent Englishmen who had supported his restoration. By 
October of the next year, the eight Lords Proprietors had established 
the settlement as the County of Albemarle. 

As years passed, settlement gradually but slowly moved southward, 
and in 1676 the Lords Proprietors, in an effort to encourage expansion, 
extended the jurisdiction of the Governor of Albemarle County to 
include "such settlements as shall bee made upon the rivers Pamleco 
and Newse." 2 By 1696 the new part of the colony was receiving 
enough attention and settlement to merit the establishment of the 
County of Bath, which included the Pamlico and the Neuse areas. 3 
In 1705 the Governor's Council, noting that the county had grown 
populous and was daily increasing, divided it into three precincts, 
each of which was to be allowed to send two representatives to the 
General Assembly. 4 One of these precincts, Archdale, contained the 

* Mr. Paul is Professor of History at Chowan College, Murfreesboro. 

*R. D. W. Connor, The Colonial and Revolutionary Periods, 1584-1783, Volume I of 
History of North Carolina, by R. D. W. Connor, William K. Boyd, J. G. de Roulhac 
Hamilton, and Others (Chicago and New York: The Lewis Publishing Company, 6 
volumes, 1919), 24. 

2 William L. Saunders (ed.), The Colonial Records of North Carolina (Raleigh: State 
of North Carolina, 10 volumes, 1886-1890), I, 232-233, hereinafter cited as Saunders, 
Colonial Records. 

3 Saunders, Colonial Records, I, 472. 

* Saunders, Colonial Records, I, 629. 

140 The North Carolina Historical Review 

area which, by 1712, had been renamed Craven Precinct. It was from 
Craven that Carteret Precinct was made in 1722. 5 

The political division of the southern part of Bath County into 
Craven and Carteret precincts occurred a number of years after the 
area had received its first settlers. In fact, it was not more than four 
years after Bath County had been created in 1696 that settlement 
reached the north banks of the Neuse River. Alonzo Thomas Dill, Jr., 
states that "the colonization of this river must be placed back in the 
opening year of the eighteenth century and not inconceivably in the 
last of the 1690's." 6 The Neuse River settlement grew steadily and, 
by about 1706, settlers had moved from its north banks, the first area 
settled, and were making their homes on its southern shores. 7 Though 
these homesites were in what later became Carteret County, they can- 
not be considered a part of the settlement that became Beaufort. 
Situated on the Neuse River, they were, throughout the Colonial 
period, more closely connected with that river and with New Bern 
than with Beaufort. 

The southward expansion of the settlement continued, and within 
two or three years after the Neuse had been crossed, settlers were 
making their homes on North and Newport rivers, which form the 
eastern and western boundaries of the peninsula on which Beaufort 
is located. Since these two rivers flow into what was then considered 
a part of Core Sound, settlers in this area were described as being 
"in Core Sound." 8 The town of Beaufort eventually became the cen- 
ter for the Core Sound settlement. 

Farnifold Green obtained the first patent for land in the Core Sound 
area. The patent was granted December 20, 1707, 9 and although 
Green did not live in the Core Sound area, 10 other settlers were soon 
making their homes there. In 1708 John Nelson was granted a patent 

5 David Leroy Corbitt, The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663-1943 
(Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History, 1950), 74. 

6 Alonzo Thomas Dill, Jr., "Eighteenth Century New Bern: A History of the town 
and Craven County, 1700-1800," Part I, "Colonization of the Neuse," The North Caro- 
lina Historical Review, XXII (January, 1945), 9, hereinafter cited as Dill, "Coloniza- 
tion of the Neuse." 

7 Dili, "Colonization of the Neuse." 13-14. See also, Saunders, Colonial Records, I, xi. 

8 Carteret County Deed Books, Office of the Register of Deeds, Carteret County Court- 
house, Beaufort, Deed Book A, 17, and passim, hereinafter cited as Carteret Deed Books; 
Beaufort County Deed Books, Office of the Register of Deeds, Beaufort County Court- 
house, Washington, Deed Book 1, 129-130, and passim, hereinafter cited as Beaufort 
County Deed Books. 

9 The year 1707 is not given, but the patent was recorded in the secretary's office 
on January 7, 1708, indicating that the date of issue, December 20, was in 1707. Craven 
County Will Books, Office of the Clerk of Court, Craven County Courthouse, New Bern, 
Will Book A, 10, hereinafter cited as Craven Will Books. 

10 Dill assigns Green to the area around Lower Broad Creek on the north side of 
Neuse River. Dill, "Colonization of the Neuse," 8. 

Colonial Beaufort 141 

for 260 acres "in Core Sound on the north side of North River," n 
and, from that time on, was closely connected with that immediate 
area. 12 Francis and John Shackleford moved into the area from Essex 
County, Virginia, sometime after 1705. 13 Francis became active in the 
affairs of the Core Sound area by 1708, 14 as did John by 1709. 15 Both 
of these men received numerous patents before 1713 16 but settled 
on the west side of North River about four miles northeast of the 
present site of Beaufort. 17 Other names connected with the Core 
Sound settlement prior to 1713 were John Fulford, Robert Turner, 
James Keith, William Bartram, Peter Worden ( also spelled Wordin ) , 
Thomas Blanton, Thomas Lepper, Thomas Sparrow, Lewis Johnson, 
Richard Graves, Christopher Dawson, Enoch Ward, Thomas Cary, 
and Thomas Kailoe. 18 Some of these, notably Cary and Lepper, lived 

11 Beaufort County Deed Books, 1, 158. 

13 John Nelson was named as one of the first commissioners for the town of Beaufort 
and a member of the first vestry of St. John's Parish. Walter Clark (ed.), The State 
Records of North Carolina (Winston, Goldsboro, and Raleigh: State of North Caro- 
lina, 16 volumes and 4-volume index [compiled by Stephen B. Weeks for both 
Colonial Records and State Records], 1895-1914), XXV, 206-209, hereinafter cited as 
Clark, State Records. He was also a justice of the peace for Carteret Precinct in 1722, 
1724, and 1728. Minutes of the Carteret County Court of Common Pleas and Quarter 
Sessions, 1723-1789, 4 volumes, Archives, State Department of Archives and History, 
Raleigh, I, 3, 20-21, hereinafter cited as Carteret Court Minutes; Saunders, Colonial 
Records, II, 459, 526. 

The exact site of Nelson's residence is not known. There is no indication that he 
lived on the tract on North River, as he sold it slightly more than a year after its 
purchase. Beaufort County Deed Books, 1, 157. He owned land near the south bank 
of Neuse River, and a deed of 1708 referred to him and his wife, Ann, as being of 
Neuse River. Beaufort County Deed Books, 1, 116, 160. Dill maintains, however, 
that "This does not preclude the likelihood of their being in Core Sound at this time, 
for the designation 'of Neuse' was often used loosely." Dill, "Colonization of the 
Neuse," 14%. The importance of the location of his residence is minimized by his 
prominence in the affairs of the area. 

13 Francis Shackleford received patents for land in Essex County, Virginia, in 1705. 
Land Grant Records of Virginia, Virginia State Library, Richmond, Land Grant Book 
IX, 695, 712. 

" On October 30, 1708, Francis Shackleford and Francis Dawson were witnesses to 
the transfer of a tract of land which later became the site of Beaufort from Peter 
Wordin to Farnifold Green. Beaufort County Deed Books, 1, 109. 

15 John Shackleford patented land on Newport River on November 14, 1709. Carteret 
Deed Books, D, 100-103. 

"Carteret Deed Books, A, 1; B, 50-51; D, 100-103; Beaufort County Deed Books, 1, 
225; Carteret County Records, Grants, 1717-1724, Archives, Book D, 2, 5-6, hereinafter 
cited as Carteret Grant Books. 

17 See inset entitled "Port Beaufort or Topsail Inlet" on Edward Moseley's "A 
New and Correct Map of the Province of North Carolina," in William P. Cumming, 
The Southeast in Early Maps with an Annotated Check List of Printed and Manuscript 
Regional and Local Maps of Southeastern North America During the Colonial Period 
(Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, c. 1958), Plate 52. The tract 

of land to which Moseley assigns Shackleford was first surveyed for Francis Shackle- 
ford prior to 1713, but his title for it lapsed. John Shackleford obtained a title for it 
on January 15, 1713/14. Carteret Grant Books, D, 5-6. 

18 John Fulford, Minutes of the Craven County Court of Common Pleas and Quarter 
Sessions, 1712-1715, Archives, Book I, 1, hereinafter cited as Craven Court Minutes; 
Robert Turner, Craven Will Books, A, 11; James Keith, Beaufort County Deed Books, 
1, 158; William Bartram, Carteret Deed Books, A, 18-20; Peter Wordin, Beaufort 
County Deed Books, 1, 108-109; Thomas Blanton, Carteret Grant Books, D, 5-6; 
Thomas Lepper, Craven Will Books, A, 27-28; Thomas Sparrow, Beaufort County 


The North Carolina Historical Review 

Port Bk at fort 


/ M f?r /ft 'a frr' 4 ' >»t Ms II <* i 

*tj » 'ffy **-* '/'ipff/f v» * arr 'fa/A^/% 

//>,// ft tt ?»»*<>,'* t /' 

The Beaufort Town inset is from the Edward Moseley map of 1733. The repro- 
duction shown here is from a copy furnished by Dr. W. P. Cumming of Davidson 
College; the map appears as Plate 52 in Dr. Cumming's The Southeast in Early 
Maps. . . . 

elsewhere and were only speculating in land. 19 Fulford, Ward, and 
Turner, though, were definitely Core Sound residents during that 
period. 20 

Deed Books, 1, 129-130; Lewis Johnson, Carteret Deed Books, A, 31; Richard Graves, 
Carteret Deed Books, A, 25; Christopher Dawson, Carteret Grant Books, D, 4-5 and 
Carteret Deed Books, A, 1, 27; Enoch Ward, Craven Will Books, A, 3, 27-28; Thomas 
Cary, Carteret Deed Books, A, 17; Thomas Kailoe, Carteret Deed Books, A, 28-29. 

19 Cary lived on Pamlico River. Alonzo Thomas Dill, Jr., "Eighteenth Century New 
Bern, A History of the Town and Craven County, 1700-1800," Part III, "Rebellion and 
Indian warfare," The North Carolina Historical Review, XXII (July, 1945), 297, 
hereinafter cited as Dill, "Rebellion and Indian Warfare." Lepper lived on Adam's 
Creek on the south side of Neuse River. Dill, "Colonization of the Neuse," 13-14. 

20 Fulford lived near "the strait in Core Sound. . . ." Craven Court Minutes, I, 1. 
Both Ward and Turner gave their names to creeks that bordered land bought by them 
during this period. Craven Will Books, A, 11, 27-28. 

Colonial Beaufort 143 

Indications are that the Core Sound settlement had some import- 
ance before 1713. A notation on Christoph von Graffenried's map of 
1710 described Core Sound as being populated almost entirely by 
Englishmen who furnished seafood of all kinds to the settlers. 21 In 
1712 Captain Edward Adlard owned a sloop named the "Core Sound 
Merchant," 22 which indicated trade in the area before that date. A 
third indication of the importance of the Core Sound settlement be- 
fore 1713 is that in 1712 in the midst of the Tuscarora War, the Gen- 
eral Assembly ordered a garrison stationed at Core Sound. 23 The pur- 
pose of the garrison, so Governor Thomas Pollock declared in 1713, 
was "to guard the people there from some few of the Cores [Indians] 
that lurk thereabout. . . ." 24 

As soon as settlers moved into the Core Sound area, the port po- 
tential of the future site of Beaufort was recognized. December 20, 

1707, Farnifold Green obtained a patent for the south end of the 
peninsula that extends between North River and Newport River. 25 
One month later, January 21, 1708, Peter Worden, then of Pamlico 
River, 26 secured a patent for 640 acres on the west side of North 
River, part of which was included in Green's patent. 27 By October of 
that year, Worden recognized Green's ownership, and on October 30, 

1708, he cleared Greens title by giving him a deed for "one certain 
Messuage or tenement of Land situate lying and being on the South 
side of North River, near to the Point of Land called Newport Town, 
with all its rights and privileges. . . ." 28 In seeking to acquire the land, 
evidently the two men had its port potential in mind since Topsail 
Inlet, now known as Beaufort Inlet, penetrated the barrier of the 
Outer Banks just two miles south. The site was named Newport 
Town and the name of the river that flows by it on its west side was 
changed from Core River to Newport River. 29 

Possibly the Tuscarora War of 1711-1713 delayed the establish- 
ment of a town within Topsail Inlet. Within seven months after the 
power of the Tuscarora Indians had been broken in March, 1713, 30 

a Alonzo Thomas Dill, Jr., Governor Try on and His Palace (Chapel Hill: The Uni- 
versity of North Carolina Press, c. 1955), opposite 32. 

23 From a document reprinted in Francis L. Hawks, History of North Carolina from 
166S to 1729 (Fayetteville: E. J. Hale & Son, 2 volumes, 1858), II, 394, hereinafter 
cited as Hawks, History of North Carolina. 

23 This garrison was stationed at " Shackleford's plantation. . . ." Saunders, 

Colonial Records, II, 2. 

24 Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 45. 

25 Craven Will Books, A, 10. 

28 Beaufort County Deed Books, 1, 110. 
27 Beaufort County Deed Books, 1, 108. 
^Beaufort County Deed Books, 1, 109. 

29 Newport River was first called Core River. Craven Will Books, A, 10. By 1712 it 
had been given its present name. Craven Will Books, A, 6. 

80 Dill, "Rebellion and Indian Warfare," 316. 


The North Carolina Historical Review 


' €&%. -tfC$*&**m2 



This "Plan of Beaufort Towne" is from the Secretary of State's Land Patent 
Book #7, 1706-1740, in the Archives State Department of Archives and History. 

a town was laid out on the southwest corner of the tract of land which 
Farnifold Green had obtained in 1707. In the meantime, Green had 
sold the land to Robert Turner, a merchant of Craven Precinct. 31 
Sometime prior to the fall of 1713, permission had been obtained from 
the Lords Proprietors to lay out a town by the name of Beaufort at 
this site, and on October 2, 1713, Robert Turner had Richard Graves, 
Deputy Surveyor, lay out the town. A plat was made of the town by 
Graves and recorded in the office of the secretary of the colony. 32 
Streets were named; allotments were provided for a church, a town- 
house, and a market place; 33 and lots were offered for sale. On that 
date, October 2, 1713, Beaufort came into existence. Though minor 
alterations were made throughout the Colonial period, the main char- 
acteristics of the plan of the town never changed. The name Beaufort 
came from Henry Duke of Beaufort, one of the Lords Proprietors, who 

31 Craven Will Books, A, 10-11, 13. 

83 Permission for, the date of, and the men and circumstances connected with the lay- 
ing out of the town are mentioned in most of the deeds for lots issued before the 
town was incorporated in 1723. See Carteret Deed Books, D, 91-92, and passim; 
Craven will Books, A, 13-51. 

33 Clark, State Records, XXV, 206. 

Colonial Beaufort 145 

in 1713 was Palatine of Carolina, the chief position among the Pro- 
prietors. Turner Street obtained its name from Robert Turner, the 
father of the town. Moore Street was probably named for Colonel 
James Moore, who seven months before had brought an end to the 
Indian war. Pollock Street was named for Thomas Pollock, Acting 
Governor of the colony from 1712 to 1714. Both Queen and Ann Streets 
were named in honor of the then reigning monarch of England, while 
Orange Street honored the memory of William III of Orange who 
had preceded Queen Anne on the English throne. Craven Street 
was named in honor of William Lord Craven, 34 another of the Lords 
Proprietors. 35 When all of these names are considered together, the 
year 1713 is clearly indicated. 

Though the town of Beaufort was laid out in 1713 with the permis- 
sion of the Lords Proprietors, it was not officially incorporated by the 
Colonial government until ten years later. In the meantime, on Octo- 
ber 19, 1720, Robert Turner had sold the 780 acres, which included 
the town lands, to Richard Rustull for 150 pound s sterling and had 
moved to the Pamlico River area, 36 which might indicate that his 
investment was not yielding satisfactory returns. At least 39 lots were 
sold during this period, 37 and in 1722, when Carteret Precinct was 
created, Beaufort was chosen to be the site of its courthouse. 38 The 
only indication of the size of Beaufort during the period is found in 
connection with a visit made by the pirates, Edward Teach and Stede 
Bonnet, to Beaufort harbor in 1718. Charles Johnson, who described 
this visit in his History of the Pirates, spoke of a "poor little village 
at the upper end of the harbour. . . /' 39 Undoubtedly, this little village 
was Beaufort. 

The act of the General Assembly of November 23, 1723, 40 which 
officially incorporated Beaufort into a town, was based upon two con- 
siderations. The first was the fact that the town had already been 
laid out. 41 The second was that the Lords Proprietors, upon the peti- 

34 For the distinction between William Earl of Craven and William Lord Craven, see 
Dill, "Colonization of the Neuse," 6n. 

35 For the significance of the names of Beaufort's streets, see A Brochure Sponsored 
by The Woman's Club of the Old Port of Beaufort, in the library of the late F. C. 
Salisbury, Morehead City. 

36 Carteret Deed Books, B, 42-44. 

37 Lots No. 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 52, 55, 62, and 65, Carteret Deed Books, A, 65 and D, 
121, 277-278; Lots No. 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 
32, 33, 34, 46, 47, 48, 50, 56, 57, 58, 60, 66, and one unidentified lot owned by Captain 
John Clark, Craven Will Books, A, 13-20, 23, 28-32, 48-51. 

38 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 102. 

89 Arthur L. Haywood (ed.), A General History of the Robberies and Murders of 
the Most Notorious Pirates, by Charles Johnson (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 
Ltd., 1955), 68-69. 

40 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 334. 

41 Clark, State Records, XXV, 206. 

146 The North Carolina Historical Review 

tion of the inhabitants of Core Sound, had "erected the same, into a 
Seaport, by the Name of Port-Beaufort . . ." and had invested the same 
with all privileges and immunities belonging to a seaport. 42 The act 
of incorporation set up certain guides to the development of the town. 
For instance, the plan of the town was to be enlarged to 200 acres. 
The lots already sold were to be reserved to their owners; the places 
laid out for a church, a townhouse, and a market place were to be 
reserved. The rest of the land was to be divided into half-acre lots 
and sold for 30 shillings each with the provision that the buyer 
must build a house, not less than 15 by 20 feet, within two years. If 
this condition were not met, the title for the lot was to lapse and it 
was to be resold at the same price. Of the 30 shillings received for 
the first sale of the lots, 20 were to go to Richard Rustull, owner of the 
town land, and the rest to purchase great guns and to fortify the 
town. The money received for the resale of lots was to be used 
for the building of a church and for such other uses as the church 
wardens and the vestry should think fit. To insure that the town 
would be a suitable place to live, the act of incorporation also 
stipulated that all lots were to be cleared, that all streets should 
be at least 66 feet wide, that all nuisances were to be removed from 
the town, and that no lot was to be enclosed by a "common Stake 
Fense; but . . . either paled in, or done with Post and Rails set up." 
Furthermore, anyone caught quarreling or fighting in the town was 
to pay a fine of ten shillings, or spend 24 hours in the common jail, 
or sit in the stocks two hours. To encourage the settlement of the 
town, the act provided that all business affairs of the precinct be 
carried on there. For the same purpose, it seems, it also stipulated 
that all liquor made in the precinct could be retailed in the town by 
any inhabitant of the town without a license. To look after the affairs 
of the town, five commissioners were appointed who, along with the 
justices of the precinct court, were given authority to fill any vacancy 
that might occur among their number because of death. The com- 
missioners were Richard Rustull, Christopher Gale, John Nelson, 
Joseph Bell, and Richard Bell. 43 

The act of incorporation also provided that Carteret Precinct was 
to have a church called the Parish of St. John. Twelve men were ap- 
pointed to compose the first vestry: Christopher Gale, Joseph Bell, 
John Shaw, John Nelson, Richard Whitehurst, Richard Williamson, 

42 Clark, State Records, XXV, 206. This action was confirmed by the Governor 
and his council on April 4, 1722. Saunders, Colonial Records, II, 454. 

43 Clark, State Records, XXV, 206-209. 

Colonial Beaufort 147 

Richard Rustull, John Shackleford, Thomas Merriday, Enoch Ward, 
Joseph Fulford, and Charles Cogdail. 44 

The growth of the town of Beaufort proceeded slowly throughout 
the Colonial period, with the possible exception of the prosperous 
years after the end of the French and Indian War. Though the 
records of the sale of lots in Colonial Beaufort are incomplete, they 
do reveal enough to confirm this general statement. For instance, 
during the first five years after Beaufort was incorporated in 1723, 
the sales of only five lots were recorded. 45 All of these occurred in 
1723, and all of them lapsed at the end of a two-year period because 
the owners did not build on them. 46 In December, 1725, Richard 
Rustull saved the investment that he had made in Beaufort by selling 
the town lands to Nathaniel Taylor, a resident of Carteret Precinct, 
for 160 pounds sterling. 47 

The year 1728 marked the beginning of a brief period during which 
speculation in Beaufort real estate reached a high point. In the four 
years after 1728, deeds were recorded for at least 21 lots for 
which there is no record of a previous sale. 48 Sixteen lots which had 
lapsed because their owners had not met the building requirements 
were resold by the town commissioners, 49 and five lots were trans- 
ferred from one individual to another. 50 A spirit of optimism was evi- 
dent by 1728 when a new section was added to the town, and from 
that time on, deeds for lots in the town of Beaufort distinguished 
between Old Town and New Town. 51 Still very few of these lots were 
saved, and in 1731, Governor Burrington described the town as one 
of "but little success & scarce any inhabitants." 52 

As years passed, lots in Beaufort were transferred back and forth 
from one owner to another, but there seems to have been little over- 
all growth. In 1737 John Brickell, writing in his Natural History of 
North-Carolina, described Beaufort as a town with a pleasant pros- 

44 Clark, State Records, XXV, 208-209. 
^Carteret Deed Books, A, 33-37. 

46 All five of these lots (Lots No. 15, 22, 27, 13, and 14) were resold by the town 
commissioners with the usual stipulation that a house be built on them within two 
years. Carteret Deed Books, D, 90, 95, 400-401; H, 358-360. 

47 Carteret Deed Books, C, 134-136. 

48 Lots No. 8, 11, 12, 13, 42, 49, 51, 53, 61, 63, and two unidentified lots owned by 
Richard Rustull, all in Old Town (that part of the town laid out in 1713), and Lots 
No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 19, 20, and 29 in New Town (see below note 51), Carteret Deed 
Books, D, 1, 6-9, 27, 29, 30-31, 38, 45-46, 55-56, 66-67, 85-86, 95, 114-115, 140, 149. 

49 Lots No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 52, 62, and 63 in Old Town, 
and Lots No. 2 and 20 in New Town, Carteret Deed Books, D, 1, 4, 28, 58, 68, 80-81, 
86, 90, 92, 94, 121. 

60 Lots No. 8, 9, and 10 in Old Town, and Lots No. 2 and 20 in New Town, Carteret 
Deed Books, D, 25-26, 44-45, 47, 58, 82-83, 87, 108, 111-112. 
51 Carteret Deed Books, D, 1, and passim. 
68 Saunders, Colonial Records, III, 191. 

148 The North Carolina Historical Review 

pect, but it was "small and thinly inhabited." 53 Even as late as 1748, 
the year after the town had been captured and occupied for a brief 
period by a band of Spanish privateers, 54 the list of taxables for the 
whole county numbered only 320. 55 Approximately one-tenth of these 
lived in Beaufort which would set the number of taxables at only 
32 in that year. 

One of the most vivid accounts of Colonial Beaufort was given by 
a French traveler who visited the town in 1765. Arriving at Cape 
Lookout on March 13, he walked down the beach to a whalers' camp 
and persuaded some of them to take him over to Beaufort on the 
mainland. A short visit left him with a very unfavorable impression 
of the town. He described it as "a Small vilage not above 12 houses, 
the inhabitants seem miserable, they are very lazy and Indolent, they 
live mostly on fish and oisters, which they have in great plenty." 56 
Though the Frenchman's description of the town as a small village is 
accurate, his estimation of not above 12 houses appears rather con- 
servative. 57 

The twelve years before the Revolutionary War seem to have been 
a period of substantial settlement in Beaufort. In the six years from 
1765 through 1770, at least 37 lots, or pieces of lots, changed hands. 58 
Some of them, to be sure, had already been saved and were just being 
transferred to new owners. At least nine of the 37 lots, or pieces of 
lots, had buildings erected on them during that period. 59 During this 
period buildings were first erected on many of the waterfront lots of 
the west end of the town. 60 

Beaufort grew steadily, and by the spring of 1773, the inhabitants 
petitioned the government of the colony that Beaufort be allowed 

83 John Brickell, The Natural History of North-Carolina with an Account of the 
Trade, Manners, and Customs of the Christian and Indian Inhabitants (Dublin, Ireland: 
Printed by James Carson, 1737), 8. 

64 The records yield little information concerning the Spanish occupation of Beaufort. 
That the town was captured is verified by the caption "Men on Duty when the Town 
was Taken," which precedes a list of names dated August 26, 1747. Clark, State 
Records, XXII, 263. 

53 William K. Boyd, "Some North Carolina Tracts of the 18th Century: X, XI," Part 
XI, "A Table of North Carolina Taxes, 1748-1770," The North Carolina Historical Re- 
view, III (July, 1926), opposite 476. 

69 "Journal of a French Traveller in the Colonies, 1765, Part I," The American His- 
torical Review, XXVI (July, 1921), 733. 

67 By 1765, 23 deeds for lots had been recorded which, by internal evidence, indicated 
that houses had been erected on these lots. See Carteret Deed Books, D, 44-46, 92, 111- 
112, 121, 150, 175 and 444, 239-240, 278, 342-343; F, 381-382; G, 132-133; H, 97-98, 
328-329, 350-351; I, 248-249. 

58 Carteret Deed Books, G, 167-169, 186-187; H, 236, 269-270, 281-282, 300, 311-313, 
315-318, 328-330, 332, 334-335, 350-351, 357-360, 420-421, 442-443, 445-447, 463-464, 480. 

69 Carteret Deed Books, H, 70, 315-316, 332, 357, 445-446, 480; I, 246-247, 331, 354- 
355, 385. 

60 Lots No. 21, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, and 33 had buildings erected on them between 1765 
and 1770. Carteret Deed Books, H, 315-316, 357, 445-446, 480; I, 246-247, 331, 354- 
355, 385. 

Colonial Beaufort 149 

representation in the General Assembly. 61 The petition also made it 
clear that Beaufort could claim such representation as a right since 
the town had 60 families, the number required for such representa- 
tion by a law of 1715. 62 Justified as it might have been, Beaufort's 
petition was not granted, due it seems, to the efforts of Royal Gov- 
ernor Josiah Martin. Writing to Lord Dartmouth on April 20, 1773, 
he advised against giving Beaufort representation on the grounds 
that the assembly was already too large and that "though Beaufort 
is advantageously situated for commerce . . . there are no persons of 
condition or substance in it, and the Trade that was formerly carried 
on through that Channel, is now derived almost entirely to this 
town," that is, to New Bern. 63 

The people who lived in Beaufort during the Colonial period rep- 
resented a variety of occupations; there were carpenters, tailors, 
blacksmiths, mariners, merchants, innkeepers, surveyors, joiners, coop- 
ers, shipwrights, shoemakers, and fishermen. 64 There were also at- 
torneys and schoolmasters. 65 In 1728 John Clement purchased a lot 
and described himself as a preacher of the Gospel, 66 but it seems that 
neither he nor any other minister lived in Beaufort during the Colonial 
period, and later his name appears in the Craven County records as 
a schoolmaster. 67 Many of Beaufort's residents held positions in the 
local and Colonial governments, and those who were qualified to do 

m Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 636-637. 
63 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 73-79. 

63 Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 636-637. 

64 Thomas Bedford, John Harris, and Richard Baker described themselves as carpen- 
ters. Carteret Deed Books, D, 27, 47, 140. William Owens and Joseph Bell were tailors. 
Carteret Deed Books, D. 27; H, 447-448. Andrew Frasure and Isaac Negus were 
blacksmiths. Carteret Deed Books, D, 28, 149. Arthur Mabson described himself as 
both a mariner and a merchant. Carteret Deed Books, D, 80-81, 89. Other merchants 
were Robert Turner, James Salter, John Clitherall, John Ronald, James Easton, 
Benjamin Appleton, and Jacob Shepherd. Carteret Deed Books, D, 58, 91, 330-331, 375; 
H, 332, 485-486. James Salter was also an innkeeper, as was William Dennis. Carteret 
Deed Books, D, 156-157; F, 380-381. James Winright was a surveyor. Carteret Deed 
Books, D, 87. William Mosely was a joiner. Carteret Deed Books, F, 381-382. Richard 
Rustull and Hector Hancock were both described as coopers. Carteret Court Minutes, 
I, 39, 41. Lawrence Boore, Robert Pew, and Robert Walpoole were shipwrights. Carteret 
Deed Books, H, 317-318; I, 135-136, 215. James Jannet was a shoemaker. Carteret Deed 
Books, I, 136-137. That there were fishermen living in Beaufort in this period is indi- 
cated by Governor Martin's description of it as "a small fishing Town. . . ." Saunders, 
Colonial Records, IX, 33. 

65 Henry Blurbon and David Handmare described themselves as attorneys at law. 
Carteret Court Minutes, I, 47, 49. Samuel Leffers was a schoolmaster. Carteret Deed 
Books, I, 251-252. 

60 Carteret Deed Books, D, 4. 

07 Alonzo Thomas Dill, Jr., "Eighteenth Century New Bern, A History of the Town 
and Craven County, 1700-1800," Part IV, "Years of Slow Development," The North 
Carolina Historical Review, XXII (October, 1945), 488. 

150 The North Carolina Historical Review 

so proudly added "Esquire" to their names. 68 Others were closely con- 
nected with the work of the Anglican Church in the county. 69 

As a whole the inhabitants of Beaufort seem to have been a very 
benevolent people. The vestrymen of the parish were meticulous in 
their concern for the needy, especially orphans, the sick who had no 
one to care for them, and the old who could not care for themselves. 70 
On at least three occasions old Indians were provided for by the 
church. 71 Even in their dealings with offenders, the jurymen who 
convened at Beaufort seem to have shown mercy as in the case of a 
certain Jane Sims who in 1736 was convicted of adultery. She was 
sentenced to "be taken to the Whipping post and there upon her 
Naked Back Receive thirty Nine Lashes well layed on. . . ." However, 
the court, "upon the humble submission of ye sd Jane Sims . . . Re- 
ferred the Immediate Execution of ye above Sentence till another 
opportunity . . ." provided that she leave the precinct. 72 

Another example of the type of justice received in Beaufort's courts 
is seen in a case involving Ebenezer Harker, a resident of nearby 
Harker's Island, 73 but a man closely connected with Beaufort's history. 
In December, 1736, Harker appeared at a meeting of the court and 
proceeded to call Thomas Lovick, chairman of the court, a scoundrel 
and a cheat and many other abusive names, declaring that he was not 
fit to be judge of the court. The justices considered the matter imme- 
diately and ordered Harker to be brought before the court on the 
next day and answer contempt charges. In the meantime, the justices 
agreed on certain measures for the erection of a jail in Beaufort which 
was greatly needed. The records do not indicate that these two 
events were connected, but it is significant to note that on the next 
day Harker appeared before the court pleading for pardon which the 
court immediately granted. 74 

The jail which was provided for at this time was to be a heavy 
wooden structure made of sawed logs not less than four inches thick 
and dovetailed at the corners. It was to have two small windows 

68 Carteret Deed Books, D, 45, 111; G, 186. Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, Beau- 
fort, 1742-1843, 3 volumes, Archives, *I, 9, hereinafter cited as Vestry Books of St. 
John's Parish. 

69 Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 3, and passim. 

70 Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 14, and passim. 

71 Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 40, 42, 53. 

72 Carteret Court Minutes, I, 63. 

73 Carteret Deed Books, E, 299-300. In the Colonial period, Harker's Island was 
called Craney Island. It was first granted to Farnifold Green, who, on January 25, 
1708/09, sold it to William Brice. On the same day, Brice sold it to Thomas Sparrow 
for £10, just double the amount he had paid for it. Beaufort County Deed Books, 1, 
129-130. From Sparrow it was transferred to Thomas Pollock, who willed it to 
his son, George Pollock. George Pollock sold it to Ebenezer Harker in 1730. Carteret 
Deed Books, D, 120, 159-160. 

7 * Carteret Court Minutes, I, 64. 

Colonial Beaufort 151 

with iron bars, a heavy door with a substantial lock, and covered with 
"good pine shingles well nailed." It was also to be equipped with a 
"good, Strong Substantial pair of Stocks. . . ." Daniel Rees was ap- 
pointed to build the structure for £, 135. 75 The records reveal that con- 
struction of this jail was immediately begun, and that it was soon 
completed. 76 

Beaufort did not have a resident minister during the Colonial 
period. Neither did it have a church building. 77 In June, 1724, the 
church wardens bought from the town commissioners a "Lott of land 
. . . together with the house now erected thereon . . . being at present 
the house appointed for a Court House. . . ." 78 Evidently, this build- 
ing was intended to serve both legal and spiritual purposes. Only 
three months later, though, a hurricane rendered it unusable by 
destroying its roof, 79 and in the next year it was completely destroyed 
by fire. 80 When the next courthouse was completed in 1728, 81 the 
church started holding its services there and did so throughout the 
Colonial period. 82 Usually, these services were conducted by a lay- 
man, 83 but for certain occasions, such as administering the sacraments, 
ministers from other parts of the colony were employed to come to 
Beaufort. 84 In 1755 the vestry arranged with the Reverend James 
Reed of Christ Church in N^ew Bern to come at certain intervals, and 
from that time to the end of the Colonial period, these visits were 
rather regular. 85 

Between 1723 and 1728 James Winright, a surveyor from Albe- 
marle County, moved to Beaufort and immediately became promi- 
nent in local affairs. 86 In the ensuing years, he invested heavily in 

75 Carteret Court Minutes, I, 64. 

78 It was needing repairs in 1742. Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 1. Provisions 
were made to replace it with a new one in 1756. Carteret Court Minutes, II, 227, 229, 

"In 1770 an act was passed for improving the town of Beaufort which stipulated 
that 10s. of every 30 received from the sale of lots in the town were to go "to the 
Church Wardens of the Parish of St. John's for and towards building a Church in 
the said Town." Clark, State Records, XXIII, 806. In 1774 David Lewis willed £100 
proclamation money, toward "Building a Church in Beaufort Town. . . ." Vestry Books 
of St. John's Parish, I, 64. There is no evidence that such a building was erected in 
the Colonial period. 

78 Carteret Deed Books, A, 97-98. 

79 Carteret Court Minutes, I, 3. 

80 Carteret Court Minutes, I, 9. 

81 Carteret Court Minutes, I, 23. 

83 Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 25, 31, 34, 41. 

83 Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 3, and passim. 

84 Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 1, 5. 

85 Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 25, and passim. See also, Saunders, Colonial 
Records, VI, 265-266, 326, 565, 1,047-1,048; VII, 99; IX, 244. 

86 In 1723 he was described as "of Albemarle County." Carteret Grant Books, D, 3. 
By 1728 he was a resident of Carteret Precinct. Carteret Deed Books, D, 1. In 1731 he 
described himself as a surveyor. Carteret Deed Books, D, 87. 

152 The North Carolina Historical Review 

real estate in the town 87 and held numerous offices in the local govern- 
ment. 88 An indication of the stature of this citizen of Beaufort is seen 
in the fact that before he died in late 1744 or early 1745, 89 he made 
his will stipulating that at the death of his wife all that he owned 
in Beaufort was to become an endowment for a school. The profits 
and rents on all of this property were to be used "for The encourage- 
ment of a Sober Discreet Quallifyed Man to teach ... at Least 
Reading Writing Vulgar & Decimal Arithmetick in the . . . town. . . /' 
He also gave £50 sterling to be applied toward building a house on 
some part of his land to serve both as a schoolhouse and as a dwelling 
for the schoolteacher. He even went so far as to provide for a measure 
of academic freedom. The schoolmaster, he declared, "Shall not be 
obliged to teach or take under his Care any Schoolar or Schoolars 
Imposed on him by the Trustees herein Mentioned or their Succesors 
or by any other person, But Shall have free Liberty to teach & take 
under his Care Such and so many Schoolars as he Shall think Con- 
venient. . . " 90 

The direct results of the gift by James Winright are not known. It is 
significant, though, that within five years there was a schoolhouse at 
the Straits, not far from Beaufort, 91 and that by 1765 the vestry had 
appointed a man to employ three schoolteachers to serve the parish. 92 
Before 1776 Samuel Letters, who described himself as a schoolmaster, 
was living in Beaufort. 93 

Throughout the Colonial period, Beaufort remained small and 
played a minor role in the over-all economy and politics of the colony. 
Though it was one of the colony's few seaports, it was never as im- 
portant as Edenton. These facts, however, do not detract from its 
significance. Through Indian attack, the destruction of tropical hur- 
ricanes, and the ravages of enemy privateers, the settlement within 
Topsail Inlet persisted to give Colonial Beaufort a significant place 
in the history of North Carolina. 

87 Carteret Deed Books, D, 1, and passim. In 1742 Winright became the owner 
of all the town lands not previously sold. Carteret Deed Books, D, 301-302. 

88 He was a town commissioner by virtue of the fact that he was owner of the 
town lands. He served also as treasurer of Carteret Precinct, Saunders, Colonial 
Records, IV, 403-404; vestryman, Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 1; clerk of court, 
Carteret Court Minutes, I, 73; and coroner, Carteret Court Minutes, I, 104. 

89 Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 5. 

90 Secretary of State Papers, North Carolina Wills, 1663-1789, Archives, XXXV, 18. 

91 Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 13. 

92 Vestry Books of St. John's Parish, I, 48. 

93 Carteret Deed Books, I, 251-252. 




By Joseph F. Steelman* 

The unanimous nomination of John Motley Morehead by the North 
Carolina fifth district Republican congressional convention in 1908 
was symbolic of a change of party strategy in the state and in the 
South. Progressive-minded Republicans had long maintained that 
leaders of questionable caliber, patronage brokers, referees, and 
the officeholding clique that dominated the party had deliberately 
thwarted its growth. Whatever gains were registered by Republicans 
could be credited in part to the apathy that prevailed in the Demo- 
cratic ranks after 1900. If the party were kept small it was believed 
that the spoils of office dispensed by a Republican administration 
could be monopolized by a privileged few. Morehead's candidacy 
was calculated to reverse this strategy and to revitalize the party. 1 

As a businessman candidate, Morehead solicited votes and financial 
support from the rising industrial and commercial interests of North 
Carolina. He lacked previous political experience, and he had not be- 
come identified with the bitter factional alignments in the Republi- 
can party. He had not served previously as an officeholder nor was he 
labeled a patronage broker or a professional politician. Morehead 
was the grandson and namesake of a distinguished Whig leader and 
governor and was heir to a celebrated family tradition. He was born 
in Charlotte in 1866, attended the public schools of that city, and 
later enrolled in the famed Bingham Military School. In 1886 he 
graduated from The University of North Carolina after which he 
completed a business course at Bryant and Stratton College in Balti- 
more. 2 

* Dr. Steelman is Professor of History at East Carolina College, Greenville. 

1 Henry W. Miller to J. Elwood Cox, February 4, 1907, and H. Sinclair Williams to 
J. Elwood Cox, February 12, 1908, J. Elwood Cox Papers, Duke Manuscript Collection, 
Duke University, Durham, hereinafter cited as Cox Papers; The Caucasian (Raleigh), 
April 9, May 7, August 20, September 10, 1908, hereinafter cited as The Caucasian; 
Daily Industrial News (Greensboro), September 1, 1908, hereinafter cited as Daily 
Industrial News. 

2 Daily Industrial News, September 3, 1908. 

154 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Morehead's business interests were varied and extensive. He had 
commenced his business career as collecting teller in the Commercial 
National Bank of Charlotte. Later he became a buyer and dealer in 
leaf tobacco in Durham. His farming and real estate interests were 
located in Mecklenburg, Rockingham, and Cabarrus counties. In 
1898 he removed to Leaksville where, as vice-president of the 
Leaksville Woolen Mills, he became affiliated in business with his 
father, Colonel John L. Morehead and his uncle, J. Turner More- 
head. The Leaksville blankets manufactured by this firm were dis- 
tributed widely to the hotel trade by the firm of John Wanamaker of 
Philadelphia. 3 

A combination of circumstances prompted Morehead's decision to 
enter the congressional race in 1908. The adverse reaction of busi- 
ness interests, particularly railroads, to the liberal legislative measures 
of North Carolina's 1907 session kindled Republican hopes for vic- 
tory. Party leaders, mindful of widespread discontent with liberal 
Democratic legislation, insisted that it was time for the business 
element in the Republican party to take a more active role in politics. 4 
Republicans also appealed to disaffected Democrats who were out- 
spokenly opposed to the candidacy and platform of William Jennings 
Bryan. A goodly number of Democrats were alienated by the avow- 
edly liberal Democratic gubernatorial nominee William Walton Kit- 
chin. 5 While Republicans did not make an issue of prohibition, they 
could capitalize upon the discontent of many Democrats who viewed 
the prohibition referendum as a denial of local self-government and 
home rule. 6 

In the fifth congressional district, made up of the counties of Ala- 
mance, Caswell, Durham, Forsyth, Granville, Guilford, Orange, Per- 
son, Rockingham, Stokes, and Surry, Republicans highlighted the bit- 
ter intraparty factional attack which had been launched against the 
Democratic congressional candidate, Aubrey Lee Brooks. It was 
unlikely that Morehead could defeat the incumbent congressman of 
the fifth district, William Walton Kitchin, but when Kitchin received 
the gubernatorial nomination and removed himself from congressional 

3 John Motley Morehead III, The Morehead Family in North Carolina and Virginia 
(New York: Privately printed, 1921), 64. 

* James H. Chadbourn to Benjamin Newton Duke, November 4, 1908, Benjamin 
Newton Duke Papers, Duke Manuscript Collection, hereinafter cited as Duke Papers; 
The Caucasian, September 24, 1908; Daily Industrial News, October 31, 1908; States- 
ville Landmark, September 8, 1908. 

6 Marion Butler to J. Elwood Cox, August 1, 12, 1908, Cox Papers. 

6 New Bern Daily Journal, February 11, 1908; Asheville Gazette-News, May 4, 1908; 
Winston-Salem Journal, May 19, 1908; The High Point Enterprise, October 28, 1908. 

Republicanism in North Carolina 155 

politics, the way was opened for a contest against Brooks to fill his 
seat. 7 

Morehead's decision to enter the congressional race was also in- 
fluenced by the nomination of Jonathan Elwood Cox, High Point fur- 
niture manufacturer and banker, as Republican gubernatorial can- 
didate. Cox wired Morehead from the Republican state convention 
in Charlotte and urged that he enter the race. 8 Earlier the names of 
Alfred Eugene Holton and William Preston Bynum, Jr., had been 
mentioned as likely candidates, but the only leader to receive wide- 
spread endorsement was John W. Fries, prominent Winston-Salem 
manufacturer. Fries withdrew his name from nomination and his 
decision led subsequently to Morehead's selection as candidate. 9 

Morehead planned to solicit the co-operation of "every mill man 
(official or owner) in the district"; he broadened his campaign to 
include "mill operatives." He and Cox proposed to rally support from 
"all classes of manufacturing." 10 The tactics of the campaign involved 
appeals to those interests, particularly textile interests, that favored 
protective tariff policies. Morehead was assured of the support of 
railroad interests that blamed Democrats for the rate legislation of 
1907. 11 Substantial contributions to the Republican campaign chest 
were made with a view to more active party participation in legisla- 
tion at state and national levels. 12 "While I have no stomach for the 
job, even if elected," Morehead confided, "I believe a business ticket 
all around will raise the standard of the party tremendously in the 
state. . . ." At the same time he assailed the role of the "professional 
politician and chronic office seeker." 13 The advocates of a business- 
man's ticket placed especial emphasis upon the need for North Caro- 
lina to take a more prominent role in national politics. They concluded 
that the only way to accomplish this objective was to elect Republican 
candidates. 14 

7 A Pocket Manual of North Carolina . . . ( [Raleigh] : The North Carolina Historical 
Commission, 1909), 144; John Motley Morehead, Charges Originated with Eminent 
Democrats and Are Not Denied (broadside), North Carolina Collection, The University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Daily Industrial News, October 11, 1908; Aubrey 
Lee Brooks, A Southern Lawyer, Fifty Years at the Bar (Chapel Hill: The University 
of North Carolina Press, 1950), 82-87. 

8 John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, September 11, November 16, 1908; David 
H. Blair to J. Elwood Cox, November 10, 1908, Cox Papers. 

9 John W. Fries to J. Elwood Cox, August 3, 1908, and David H. Blair to J. Elwood 
Cox, July 9, September 1, 1908, Cox Papers; Daily Industrial News, September 1, 

10 John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, September 21, 1908, Cox Papers. 

u Gilliam Grissom to Benjamin Duke, September 29, 1908, Duke Papers; J. S. 
White to J. Elwood Cox, August 31, 1908, Cox Papers; Daily Industrial News, Octo- 
ber 9, 1908. 

12 Benjamin Newton Duke to John C Angier, October 23, 1908, Duke Papers. 

"John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, August 28, 1908, Cox Papers; Daily 
Industrial News, October 31, 1908. 

14 The Caucasian, September 10, 24, 1908. 

156 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The campaign of 1908, therefore, involved a more determined effort 
than heretofore to elect Republican candidates. At the same time, the 
Republican spokesmen were attempting a complete overhaul and re- 
orientation of the party. For the first time in the history of the party 
its presidential candidate, William Howard Taft, conducted a cam- 
paign tour of the state. 15 The initiative in the state campaign was 
assumed by Thomas Settle, Marion Butler, Elwood Cox, and More- 
head. They were advised about many aspects of party strategy by 
William Garrott Brown. Nationally prominent as a political essayist 
and historian, Brown had retired from his lectureship in American 
history at Harvard University and his writing career to undergo treat- 
ment for tuberculosis at Asheville. His articles on Republican party 
strategy appeared in New York newspapers, the World's Work, and 
Harpers Weekly, and his principal theme involved the rebuilding of 
the Republican party in the South. Brown claimed that he wrote the 
Republican state platform in North Carolina in 1908. 16 

Morehead and Cox were neophytes in politics and represented the 
industrial and commercial interests of the Piedmont. Settle was a 
seasoned politician and former congressman who rallied support for 
the party from his residence in Asheville. Butler's career in politics 
as Populist and Republican had been characterized by unending crises. 
It was anticipated that from his stronghold in Sampson County he 
would anchor the eastern wing of the party. His strongly worded 
editorials in The Caucasian of Raleigh set the tone of the campaign. 
For many years Butler had been engaged in a running attack upon 
patronage brokers in the party. It should be added, however, that he 
was engaged in a good deal of influence peddling from his law office 
in the nation's capital. 17 

Since Republicans had abandoned the Negro and contended during 
the campaign of 1908 that William Jennings Bryan was meeting 
secretly with Negro delegations, the obvious strategy for them to 
pursue was to make the party attractive to disaffected Democrats. 18 
To accomplish this end a strong appeal was made to industrial leaders, 

15 Daily Industrial News, October 18, 1908; The Caucasian, October 22, 1908; The 
Union Republican (Winston), October 22, 1908, hereinafter cited as The Union 

ia William Garrott Brown to Thomas Settle, September 1, 1908, Thomas Settle to 
J. Elwood Cox, September 2, 4, 1908, and William Garrott Brown to J. Elwood Cox, 
October 7, 16, 1908, Cox Papers; Charlotte Daily Observer, September 3, 10, 18, 1908; 
World's Work, XVI (August, 1908), 10,516-10,517. 

17 The Caucasian, November 12, 1908. 

18 Iredell Meares to J. Elwood Cox, July 27, 1908, William J. Leary to J. Elwood 
Cox, September 4, 1908, S. Arthur White to J. Elwood Cox, September 12, 1908, and 
George E. Butler to J. Elwood Cox, September 30, 1908, Cox Papers; The Union 
Republican, February 13, March 5, July 30, October 29, 1908; The Caucasian, July 
16, August 13, 1908; Statesville Landmark, February 11, 1908. 

Republicanism in North Carolina 157 

of whom the most conspicuous was Daniel Augustus Tompkins of 
Charlotte. Thomas Settle had launched a movement during the sum- 
mer of 1908 to nominate Tompkins as Republican gubernatorial can- 
didate. Tompkins confided, "I have not seen my way clear to under- 
take to inaugurate any new movement at the present time." 19 
Therefore he declined the Republican nomination. Nonetheless, he 
assisted Republican gubernatorial candidate Elwood Cox in writing 
campaign speeches, and he borrowed heavily from ideas he had re- 
ceived from Walter Hines Page. 20 Tompkins publicly supported Taft 
and he was quoted by the Baltimore American to have declared: 
"Thank heaven the day has gone in North Carolina when to cast a 
Republican ballot invited censure and ostracism." 21 At about the same 
time the Democratic state chairman gratefully acknowledged a con- 
tribution of $20 from Tompkins toward the state campaign expenses. 22 
In the presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional races of 1908, 
Republicans of North Carolina made unprecedented gains. In five 
congressional districts Taft's vote was greater than Bryan's. 23 More- 
head's election to Congress from the fifth district and the election of 
two other Republicans, Charles Holden Cowles in the eighth district 
and John G. Grant in the tenth district, emboldened party strategists 
to intensify their campaign to break the "Solid South." The Daily 
Industrial News of Greensboro reported that Taft had written Elwood 
Cox that the election of Morehead to Congress was the greatest Re- 
publican victory in the United States in 1908, and it speculated that 
Morehead might be Taft's running mate in 1912. 24 It was noted that 
Morehead's election as a businessman Republican in a strongly Demo- 
cratic district was the first such victory for the party south of the 
Potomac. 25 William Preston Bynum, Jr., who served as chairman of 
Morehead's campaign committee, declared, "he was elected because 
he ran independent of the machine; otherwise he would not have been 
elected." Bynum concluded that if Taft wished to make North Caro- 

19 Thomas Settle to Daniel Augustus Tompkins, July 5, 1908; Daniel Augustus 
Tompkins to W. H. Ragan, July 15, 1908, Daniel Augustus Tompkins Papers, Southern 
Historical Collection, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, hereinafter 
cited as Tompkins Papers. 

20 Arthur W. Page to Daniel Augustus Tompkins, July 13, 1908; Daniel Augustus 
Tompkins to Arthur W. Page, July 15, 1908; Walter Hines Page to Daniel Augustus 
Tompkins, July 28, 1908; Daniel Augustus Tompkins to J. Elwood Cox, December 31, 
1908, Tompkins Papers. 

21 Quoted in Daily Industrial News, September 30, 1908; see also, Daniel Augustus 
Tompkins to J. Elwood Cox, December 31, 1908, Tompkins Papers. 

23 Adolphus H. Eller to Daniel Augustus Tompkins, October 19, 1908, Tompkins 

23 William Howard Taft to J. Elwood Cox, November 30, 1908, Cox Papers; Daily 
Industrial News, November 8, 29, 1908; Charlotte Daily Observer, December 6, 1908. 

24 Daily Industrial News, November 14, 1908. 

*The Caucasian, January 6, 1910. 

158 The North Carolina Historical Review 

lina Republican, he would "find it necessary to use other instrumen- 
talities than what is known as the 'organization/ " 26 

A New York Times reporter claimed that Morehead regarded his 
election as a personal calamity. He had not expected to win, and his 
only purpose was to cut down the Democratic majority. He did not 
have the slightest idea of being elected; he did not make speeches; 
he did not attend meetings; and he refused to meet Aubrey L. Brooks 
in debate. The reporter quoted Morehead as saying that he had been 
"badly betrayed" by his warmest friends. "I never went into anything 
so half-heartedly in all my life. I am a business man; I don't know 
anything about politics, and care less," Morehead was reported to 
have said. 27 When this was brought to Morehead's attention he brand- 
ed it as a lie and remarked that "no interview of any kind has been 
given and the first article in the Times was as much news to me as 
any one else " 28 Newspaper accounts from North Carolina indi- 
cated that Morehead spoke extensively during the campaign. 

Encouraged by the election of three Republican congressmen from 
North Carolina, William Garrott Brown recommended that southern 
Republicans abandon their policy of deliberately stunting the party's 
growth and catering to delegate-delivering machines of federal office- 
holders. In order to achieve this purpose Brown urged that Taft make 
a speech at once and announce his southern policy. Morehead was 
advised of these plans. When Brown was prevented by illness from 
visiting Taft in New York, Walter Hines Page took his place and pre- 
vailed upon the president-elect to address the North Carolina Society 
of New York at the Hotel Astor on December 7, 1908. 29 This was 
considered to be Taft's opening round in a campaign to break the 
"Solid South." After a flowery introduction by Page, Taft told his 
southern friends that election laws prevented domination of states, 
counties, or municipalities by "an ignorant electorate of white or 
black." The Negro, he declared, should have an equal chance to 
qualify himself for the franchise, and he denounced proposals to 
repeal the fifteenth amendment. He proposed agricultural and in- 
dustrial training for the Negro. The federal government, he added, 
had nothing to do with social equality and the Civil War amend- 

29 William Preston Bynum, Jr., to Henry Edward Cowan Bryant, June 24, 1909, 
Henry Edward Cowan Bryant Papers, Southern Historical Collection, hereinafter cited 
as Bryant Papers. 

27 The New York Times, November 12, 1908. 

23 John Motley Morehead to J. Gilmer Korner, November 17, 1908, Duke Papers; see 
also, John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, November 16, 1908, Cox Papers. 

29 William Garrott Brown to William R. Thayer, November 13, 1908, William Garrott 
Brown Papers, Duke Manuscript Collection, hereinafter cited as Brown Papers; William 
Garrott Brown to J. Elwood Cox, November 17, 18, December 5, 1908, and John Motley 
Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, December 1, 1908, Cox Papers. 

Republicanism in North Carolina 159 

ments did not declare social equality. With the removal of the race 
question from politics he maintained there could be a division along 
economic lines. At the conclusion of this address that was obviously 
intended to soothe the ears of southerners, Taft remarked "the best 
friend the Negro can have is the southern white man/' 30 

If Taft's southern policy were to be effective, it was necessary to 
lure Democrats into the Republican camp. The key figure in North 
Carolina upon whom Republicans lavished attention was Daniel A. 
Tompkins. Thomas Settle urged that Tompkins accept a cabinet post. 
"You, Morehead, Cox and myself can by co-operation in the present 
status of affairs, I think, accomplish a great deal for good results 
in the general situation," Settle confided. 31 But while Tompkins 
might be a man of Republican principles when it came to active 
participation in politics he had feet of clay. His ardor commenced to 
wane when he was told that Taft was anxious to see him and Joseph 
P. Caldwell and James Calvin Hemphill during a golfing holiday in 
Augusta, Georgia. 32 "I have never been in politics and don't want 
to have the semblance of now actually entering into the political 
field. I therefore think it best for me not to make any visit to Augusta 
on my own motion, nor with the committee of a party which is 
distinctly Republican and political," Tompkins pleaded. Two weeks 
later he advised that he "particularly wished to avoid any semblance 
of purely political relations" with Taft, and he begged Elwood Cox 
to visit in Augusta and "suggest the propriety of letting this whole 
subject drop for the present." 33 

Taft was eager to meet his southern friends. He suggested a meet- 
ing in Augusta on December 21, 22, or 23, and when he found their 
time was taken up with "previous engagements" he proposed "any 
time" during the first week of January. 34 When it was revealed that 
the Augusta meetings were intended to launch Taft or Independent 
clubs in the South, Joseph P. Caldwell pleaded that he too be excused 
"from this unfortunate complication without further embarrass- 
ment." 35 Tompkins remarked: "It is an exceedingly delicate matter 

30 The New York Times, December 8, 1908; see also, Daily Industrial News, December 
8, 1908. 

31 Thomas Settle to Daniel Augustus Tompkins, November 15, 25, 1908, Tompkins 
Papers. Marion Butler also suggested that Tompkins be considered for a cabinet 
position. See Marion Butler to William Howard Taft, January 6, 1909; Marion Butler 
to Daniel Augustus Tompkins, January 23, 1909, Tompkins Papers. 

^Joseph Pearson Caldwell to Henry Edward Cowan Bryant, December 14, 1908, 
Cox Papers; Daniel Augustus Tompkins to Thomas Settle, November 24, 1908, and 
Richard H. Edmonds to Daniel Augustus Tompkins, November 23, 1908, Tompkins 

33 Daniel Augustus Tompkins to J. Elwood Cox, December 19, 31, 1908, Cox Papers. 

34 William Howard Taft to J. Elwood Cox, December 19, 23, 1908, Cox Papers. 

35 Joseph Pearson Caldwell to J. Elwood Cox, January 1, 1909, Cox Papers. 

160 The North Carolina Historical Keview 

to write about, or even talk about, but the southern man who wishes 
to be at the same time conservative in his loyalty to the people of 
the South and liberal in his views upon political and economic 
subjects, cannot bring himself to the appearance of going over bodily 
to the Republican party." 36 

The much publicized plans of Morehead, Cox, Settle, Butler, and 
Brown to Republicanize the state and thereby seize the initiative in 
the South received a jolting setback when Tompkins and Caldwell 
balked at the prospect of closer affiliation with Taft. Undaunted by 
Tompkins' vascillating role, Taft conferred with southern leaders in 
Augusta on December 31, 1908, and it was shortly reported that he 
had served notice that the party in the South would not be run for 
the convention votes it would yield. While eating opossum, sweet 
potatoes, and persimmon sauce Taft announced that he intended to 
bring the South into closer relationship with national politics, and 
he indicated that he would appoint men of character, reputation, 
and ability. He would seek the most eligible candidates for office 
whether they were Republicans or Democrats. 37 

Long before Morehead was installed in office, he found that his 
time would be preoccupied with patronage matters. "It is a great 
misfortune to the Republican Party that there is no job for every 
man who voted the ticket," he wrote Elwood Cox, "and this business 
is getting on my nerves." 38 It was evident that Morehead would be 
opposed by the "organization" leaders in his own party, the state 
chairman Spencer Bell Adams and the national committeeman Edward 
Carl Duncan. 39 In matters involving the patronage there had been 
ample warning that Taft might appoint a Democrat to a lucrative 
federal post; his address to the Republican state convention in Greens- 
boro in 1906 had served as a forewarning of his intentions. 40 

The appointment of Henry Groves Connor as federal district judge 
for the eastern North Carolina district following the death of Thomas 
R. Purnell nonetheless came as a great shock to Morehead and the 
Republican state organization. A prominent Democrat from Wilson, 
Connor had served with distinction as associate justice of the state 
Supreme Court. Morehead supported unsuccessfully the appointment 

86 Daniel Augustus Tompkins to Henry Edward Cowan Bryant, December 30, 1908, 
Daniel Augustus Tompkins Papers, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, here- 
inafter cited as Tompkins Papers, Library of Congress. 

37 The Caucasian, January 7, 21, 28, 1909. 

38 John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, February 6, 1909, Cox Papers. 

39 William Garrott Brown to A. Piatt Andrew, June 29, 1910, Brown Papers; 
The Caucasian, June 24, 1909. 

40 The Caucasian, April 22, 1909; Times-Mercury (Hickory), May 19, 1909; The 
News and Observer (Raleigh), May 21, 1909, hereinafter cited as The News and 
Observer; World's Work, XVII (March, 1909), 11,299-11,300. 

Republicanism in North Carolina 161 

of Thomas Settle to this position. "It is nothing short of a travesty 
that the most representative man from any and every standpoint 
and the natural leader and the pack-horse of Republicanism in North 
Carolina should fail to receive from this administration the reward 
that he merits," Morehead complained. 41 Taft was adamant that the 
judge should be a resident of the eastern district and when the names 
of former Populists were submitted for his consideration, he was 
reported to have exclaimed that he intended to appoint a "judge." 42 
Morehead confided to Elwood Cox: "But for the internecine warfare 
in the Party, which gives me an abiding disgust for politics, we could 
land Settle over Mr. Taft's objection to residence." And he added 
"the fact that Pritchard and Duncan have been astraddle of Settle's 
neck for the past twelve years should cause his friends to rally to 
him now that Mr. Taft has shot a hole in the machine that permits 
the passage of not a four-horse team but a man-of-war." 43 More- 
head was eager that the business elements in the Republican party 
rally behind Settle; he recalled ". . . Taft has said he would not con- 
sider any man who has affiliated with the Populists, which practically 
eliminates all Republicans mentioned for the position within the 
district." 44 He undertook to persuade the President to go outside the 
district for a candidate and in this instance he failed. Edward C. 
Duncan, the national committeeman, was accused of abandoning the 
Republican candidate who sought this position. 45 Marion Butler's 
Caucasian for months had encouraged the President to assume greater 
independence in making appointments and it urged him to select the 
best man, whether a Republican or a Democrat. In the light of 
Connor's appointment The Caucasian sternly observed that Taft had 
misapplied the principle. 46 While virtually all factions in the Re- 
publican party were opposed to Connor's appointment, there were 
confidential assurances from some Republicans that Taft's selection 
met with hearty approval. 47 

When Taft called Congress into special session in 1909 to com- 
mence work on the tariff, Morehead was anxious to focus his attention 

41 John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, March 30, 1909, Cox Papers. 

42 World's Work, XVIII (June, 1909), 11,635; (July, 1909), 11,733; see Taft's 
comment to a Charlotte audience on May 20, 1909, in The Caucasian, May 27, 1909. 

43 John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, April 2, 1909, Cox Papers. 

44 John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, April 2, 1909, Cox Papers. 

45 Edward C Duncan to J. Elwood Cox, April 23, May 15, 1909, Cox Papers. For 
information on aspirants to the position, see J. Frank Liles to J. Elwood Cox, March 
22, 1909; Herbert F. Seawell to J. Elwood Cox, January 23, April 20, 1909; Harry 
Skinner to J. Elwood Cox, December 21, 1908; E. W. Timberlake to J. Elwood Cox, 
December 14, 1908, Cox Papers. 

49 The Caucasian, May 13, 1909. 

47 Henry Groves Connor to J. Elwood Cox, May 15, 1909; Joseph M. Dixon to 
J. Elwood Cox, May 15, 1909, Cox Papers. 

162 The North Carolina Historical Review 

upon this question and related economic issues. He believed the in- 
dustrial interests of North Carolina and the southern states were 
entitled to protection, and he was greatly interested in a program 
of ship subsidies that would promote the export trade. 48 From a 
practical standpoint, however, Morehead found that his time was 
preoccupied with patronage matters. Increasingly he disagreed with 
Taft, the postmaster-general, Frank H. Hitchcock, and with "organ- 
ization" Republicans on the matter of political appointments. Two 
controversial incidents in particular led to Morehead's disenchant- 
ment with party leaders. 

The first involved the appointment of William Henry Glasson as 
director of the census in the fifth congressional district. When Glas- 
son's appointment was announced Morehead exploded in a towering 
rage: "Mr. Taft's, Mr. Cox's and my votes in the last campaign were 
predicated upon a new dispensation within our State and a relief from 
conditions which had long prevailed." He described Glasson as a 
"quasi-resident" of the state, "being a professor at Trinity College in 
Durham," whose name was unknown and whose nomination was 
protested by the Durham County organization. 49 Morehead had rec- 
ommended his close friend, David H. Blair of Winston-Salem, as 
census supervisor, and he expostulated to Joseph G. Cannon that 
Edward C. Duncan had blacklisted Blair. 50 Duncan's personal ven- 
detta against the new industrial leaders among Republicans was in- 
ferred. Morehead declared: "The difficulty with the Republican Party 
in North Carolina is that it ... is in the hands of an absolute dictator- 
ship, and these dictators have in view nothing but the control of 
Federal patronage." 51 He had hoped that a new order would be 
proclaimed after the election of 1908 and to Cannon he confided: 
"Mr. Taft told me voluntarily and without initiative on my part that 
he would be damned if he stood for the heretofore existing order of 
affairs in the State.' To date he has failed to put into effect that 
declaration but a condition of absolute dictatorship is still held by 
the National Committeeman through his friendship and association 
with Mr. Hitchcock." 52 Morehead concluded that the best element 
of the party supported his position. 

49 Congressional Record, Sixty-first Congress, Second Session, Volume 45, Part 6, 
6,296ff., and Volume 45, Part 8, 8,289-8,294; John Motley Morehead, "The Commerical 
and Political Evolution of North Carolina," Editorial Review (November, 1910), 

49 John Motley Morehead to Joseph M. Dixon, September 18, 1909, Cox Papers. 

50 John Motley Morehead to Joseph G. Cannon, September 18, 1909; see also, David 
H. Blair to J. Elwood Cox, September 23, 1909; John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood 
Cox, September 18, 1909; Gilliam Grissom to J. Elwood Cox, September 16, 1909, Cox 

61 John Motley Morehead to Joseph G. Cannon, September 18, 1909, Cox Papers. 
52 John Motley Morehead to Joseph G. Cannon, September 18, 1909, Cox Papers. 

Republicanism in North Carolina 163 

"I shall leave no stone unturned," Morehead asserted, "to prevent 
the confirmation of Dr. Glasson. If the present status is maintained," 
he added, "my entrance into politics and election will have been 
worse than meaningless and futile." 53 He was determined to force a 
showdown. The enlistment of Senator Joseph M. Dixon's support 
apparently led to the withdrawal of Glasson's name and to Blair's 
appointment. Dixon remarked that the director of the census, E. Dana 
Durand, suggested Glasson's name as a compliment to his former 
college classmate and that factional differences between Duncan and 
Morehead had no bearing upon the matter. 54 It was reported that 
Morehead had threatened to resign if Glasson's appointment were 
confirmed; however, he categorically denied this rumor. 55 The Ashe- 
ville Gazette-News cynically observed that Morehead's campaign for 
Blair "made efforts of old line professionals seem modest." 56 

The deluge of applications, letters of recommendation, backstage 
manipulations and influence peddling connected with the spoils of 
office drove Morehead to distraction. His long and patient efforts to 
secure for Elwood Cox the post of ambassador to Switzerland ended 
in failure. 57 Increasingly, Morehead was convinced that his efforts to 
rebuild the party were betrayed by Frank H. Hitchcock and Edward 
C. Duncan. As a congressman, Morehead realized that his influence 
was limited. Gradually the idea took root in his mind that the way 
to rebuild the party in North Carolina was to gain control of the 
entire state organization. 58 

Early in 1910 the campaign to remove Spencer B. Adams and Ed- 
ward C. Duncan was launched in earnest. William Garrott Brown 
was enlisted to contribute frequent editorial paragraphs to George 
Harvey of Harpers Weekly and to Walter Hines Page, editor of 
World's Work. He projected the party struggle in North Carolina 
into newspapers and magazines that were read throughout the nation. 
The principal theme of his editorial comments indicted Hitchcock 
and the "pie hunting brigades" of machine politicians who had be- 
trayed Taft's southern policy. Brown described Hitchcock as the 
political manager of the administration; it was he who controlled 

63 John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, September 18, 1909, Cox Papers. 

64 Joseph M. Dixon to J. Elwood Cox, September 29, 1909; Joseph M. Dixon to John 
Motley Morehead, September 29, 1909; John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, 
October 7, November 19, 1909, Cox Papers. 

66 The Caucasian, November 25, December 2, 1909. 

66 Quoted in The Caucasian, December 16, 1909. 

67 John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, March 20, 23, 26, 27, December 4, 13, 
1909, Cox Papers. 

58 John Motley Morehead to J. Elwood Cox, February 5, June 23, 1910, Cox Papers; 
John Motley Morehead to William Garrott Brown, May 25, 1910, Brown Papers; 
The Caucasian, November 11, 1909, July 21, 1910. 

164 The North Carolina Historical Review 

southern machines which delivered one-third of the delegates to the 
national conventions of the party. Referring to North Carolina, the 
historian declared that a movement had been started to fight such an 
undemocratic system, to repudiate Hitchcock's referees and his servile 
following, and to replace them with men who commanded the respect 
of the state. 69 

Alfred Eugene Holton candidly remarked that "those who in the 
inception of Taft's candidacy were apparently opposed to him appear 
now to be in the saddle and his friends in this state seem to be getting 
it in the neck." Holton recalled that in 1907 Theodore Roosevelt called 
him and Harry Skinner to the White House and advised them that 
Duncan, Adams, and Hitchcock were attempting to defeat Taft's 
nomination. At that time Hitchcock was managing George B. Cor- 
telyou's bid for the presidential nomination. 60 Morehead believed that 
Roosevelt had called a conference with J. Pierpont Morgan and pre- 
vailed upon him to switch from Cortelyou to Taft with the under- 
standing that Hitchcock would be "placed in charge of Taft." Appar- 
ently this was the reason why Hitchcock took "unprecedented liber- 
ties" in dictating appointments and why Taft's friends had been 
betrayed. 61 

Through Thomas Settle's efforts Brown was introduced to More- 
head. 62 Brown's editorial comments projected the congressman's cru- 
sade in North Carolina onto the national scene. After reading "The 
South in National Politics," which Brown published in The South 
Atlantic Quarterly, Morehead commented: "Without 'slopping over' 
as Joe Caldwell would say, it is a classic, and it is the key note to the 
political redemption of the South and its reinstatement in the affairs 
of the Nation and it is along these lines that my feeble efforts are 
trained." 63 With the appearance of Brown's editorial paragraphs in 
Harpers Weekly he and Morehead commenced a frequent and es- 
pecially interesting exchange of correspondence on the direction of 
party strategy. 

Newspaper editorials from throughout the state anticipated the 

69 William Garrott Brown to E. S. Martin, January 21, 1909, and John Motley 
Morehead to William Garrott Brown, March 12, April 16, 1910, Brown Papers; 
Harper's Weekly, LIV (January 15, 1910), 4-5; (February 26, 1910), 5; (March 12, 
1910), 4; (May 21, 1910), 4-5; (July 9, 1910), 5. 

60 Alfred Eugene Holton to John Motley Morehead, March 2, 1910, Brown Papers. 

61 John Motley Morehead to William Garrott Brown, April 21, 1910; see also, William 
Garrott Brown to John Motley Morehead, July 4, 1910; William Garrott Brown to 
E. S. Martin, July 2, 1910; A. Piatt Andrew to William Garrott Brown, June 23, 1910, 
Brown Papers. 

m Thomas Settle to William Garrott Brown, March 4, 1910; John Motley Morehead 
to William Garrott Brown, March 8, 1910, Brown Papers. 

w John Motley Morehead to William Garrott Brown. April 27, 1910, Brown Papers. 

Republicanism in North Carolina 165 

contest between Morehead and Duncan for the chairmanship of the 
party in the Republican state convention of 1910. Thomas Settle and 
Edmond Spencer Blackburn organized support for Morehead in the 
western counties, and Marion Butler and Harry Skinner rallied dele- 
gates in the East. All indications pointed to the largest state conven- 
tion in the party's history and to a desperate struggle for power. The 
"old line" Republicans could count upon the leadership of Duncan 
and support from Spencer B. Adams, Isaac Meekins, Jeter C. Prit- 
chard, Thomas S. Rollins, and Virgil S. Lusk. Morehead's bid for 
power was opposed strongly by the Asheville Gazette-News, the 
Greensboro Daily News, and the Southern Republican of Charlotte. 64 
On the eve of the Republican state convention Morehead wrote to 
William Garrott Brown a full and candid analysis of the situation. In 
words that frankly revealed his political aspirations he recalled: 

I had a long talk with the President just before leaving Washington 
with the net result that he expressed great interest in our coming endeavor 
to reorganize the party at the State Convention . . . and he practically 
agreed to make no recess appointments. This was most important and 
while he declined to commit himself, he dismissed me with the remark — 
"Well, Morehead, I think we understand each other." 

Morehead was reassured through a "Senatorial medium" that no 
recess appointments would be made. "I will not stand for renomina- 
tion to Congress," he added, "and thereby hangs a tale." 

In discussing the North Carolina situation with around two hundred 
men of more or less political prominence and in corresponding with 
thousands of the rank and file of the party, this situation has been pre- 
sented : 

A re-organization of the party is essential to success at the polls for 
the reason (if for no other) that recruits will not come to us as long as 
the party has for its chief object of existence the control and dispensation 
of the patronage. It is believed (justly or unjustly) that this one feature 
constitutes seventy-five percent of the Republican view-point and excuse 
for existence as the party is to-day. 

The balance of power in the State is embodied in a class of men who 
are the cream of our citizenship — from the mental, social and business 
standpoint. These men are disgusted with Democratic tendencies and 
will actively embrace Republicanism as soon as the Republicans demon- 
strate they place policy above pie. This being the case, it has been pre- 

64 The Caucasian, March 3, 10, April 28, May 19, June 9, 23, July 28, 1910 ;The News 
and Observer, July 24, 1910; Charlotte Daily Observer, February 4, March 17, 1910; 
Marion Butler to James H. Ramsay, July 15, 1910, and John Motley Morehead to 
James H. Ramsay, August 1, 1910, James Graham Ramsay Papers, Southern Historical 

166 The North Carolina Historical Review 

sented that if the progressive element could elect any chairman at all, they 
could elect me and if they cannot elect me they can elect nobody — and 
the net result of all the discussion and correspondence is that I am standing 
for the chairmanship but not for Congress. 65 

Morehead believed that 90 per cent of the voters in the Republican 
party would support his decision. He acknowledged that his follow- 
ing was "an untrained host against a thoroughly trained and devel- 
oped organization, which is fighting for its political life." 66 

In anticipation of the state convention in Greensboro, Morehead 
and Settle instructed Brown to draft the state platform. 67 It was 
agreed that the platform "should be the consistent work of one man, 
rather than the crazy quilt work of a number. . . ." Morehead re- 
viewed Brown's draft and called it "a superb document/' although 
he favored "a little more coloring matter on state matters" which he 
said Settle could provide. 68 Settle called it "a dandy, a corker, just 
the thing needed at this time." 69 Brown inserted a plank favoring 
the Appalachian Forest Preserve which he recalled "got lost in the 
shuffle." He did not claim authorship for the plank that called for 
state purchase of public school textbooks. Otherwise the document 
was his own. It is noteworthy that the newspapers were unaware of 
Brown's role in formulating party startegy. 70 

Amidst the largest state Republican convention ever to assemble in 
North Carolina, Morehead emerged as the acknowledged leader of 
his party. Delegates filled the Greensboro Opera House to overflow- 
ing, and the convention was adjourned to the larger city auditorium. 
Morehead won the first round when his close friend Thomas Settle 
was elected convention chairman over Hamilton C. Ewart by a vote 
of 737 to 378. Frank Linney of Boone placed Morehead's name in 
nomination for chairman of the state executive committee. Herbert 
F. Seawell of Carthage nominated Edward C. Duncan, and a third 
candidate, J. E. Alexander of Winston-Salem, was nominated by 
A. T. Grant of Davie County. The Duncan forces failed to transfer 
their support to Alexander, whose name was withdrawn, and More- 
head was thereupon nominated by acclamation. 71 

65 John Motley Morehead to William Garrott Brown, July 2, 1910, Brown Papers. 

68 John Motley Morehead to William Garrott Brown, July 2, 1910, Brown Papers. 

67 Thomas Settle to William Garrott Brown, July 27, 1910; Gilliam Grissom to 
William Garrott Brown, July 23, 1910, Brown Papers. 

^Thomas Settle to William Garrott Brown, August 3, 1910; John Motley Morehead 
to William Garrott Brown, August 3, 1910, Brown Papers. 

cfl Thomas Settle to William Garrott Brown, August 3, 1910, Brown Papers. 

70 William Garrott Brown to A. Piatt Andrew, September 22, 1910, Brown Papers. 

71 The Union Republican, August 11, 1910; Charlotte Daily Observer, August 11, 12, 
1910; The News and Observer, August 11, 1910; The Caucasian, August 18, 1910. 

Republicanism in North Carolina 167 

The election of Morehead as state chairman obviously met with 
Taft's approval. In his acceptance speech the new chairman lashed 
out at the hackneyed issues of Reconstruction, force bills, and Negro 
voting and officeholding as relics of a past era. He reminded his 
audience that it did not live in the days of Appomattox and he re- 
buked Democrats who appealed solely to passion and prejudice. If 
the Republican party were dominated by one individual or machine, 
Morehead contended, it could never break the "Solid South" or en- 
courage intelligent and self-respecting voters to assert their indepen- 
dence. He held his own party responsible for the state of affairs which 
he attacked. His reference to domination of the party by one indi- 
vidual could have been a reflection upon Edward C. Duncan or a 
repudiation of the charge that the new state chairman would be 
dominated by Marion Butler. Morehead assured the convention that 
Republican congressmen should control the patronage in their dis- 
tricts, and he added "such has not been my experience." He offered a 
greater local autonomy in the management of party affairs. He be- 
lieved the movement that he represented would regain for the South 
its rightful influence in national politics. 72 

The convention of 1910 was hailed as an augury of change in Re- 
publican party tactics in the South. 73 The hopes of Morehead and his 
followers, however, proved to be chimerical. The revolt of the Insur- 
gents already raged in the Congress. Taft had shown his political 
ineptitude on a number of occasions, much to the embarrassment of 
party leaders. Edward C. Duncan remained national committeeman 
in North Carolina and his influence would be a thorn in Morehead's 
side. A goodly number of Republicans in the state still smarted against 
Connor's appointment as federal district judge. Other Republicans, 
especially from the western counties, complained that Morehead had 
favored "commercial" Democrats and newcomers to the party and 
ignored the faithful of long standing. These disaffected elements 
counted heavily upon the bitter editorials in Walter Hildebrand's 
Asheville Gazette-News. 74 

It was ironic that the Republican party had made steady gains 
from 1900 to 1908. Morehead's election to Congress in 1908 was a 

72 John Motley Morehead, Address Accepting the Unanimous Call of the Republican 
Convention to the State Chairmanship (n.p., n.d., imprint of 4 pp.) ; The Caucasian, 
August 18, 1910. 

^Harper's Weekly, LIV (August 13, 1910), 4; (August 20, 1910), 4; (October 29, 
1910), 5. 

74 The Caucasian, January 6, 13, 20, February 10, June 16, 1910; Asheville Gazette- 
News, January 14, 1910; Greensboro Daily News, July 22, 1910; Statesville Landmark, 
September 27, 1910; The News and Observer, July 30, 31, 1910; D. C. Mangum to 
John Motley Morehead, April 29, 1910, and John Motley Morehead to D. C. Mangum, 
April 30, 1910, Brown Papers. 

168 The North Carolina Historical Review 

reflection of this trend. Yet as the new state chairman he was con- 
fronted with decisive Democratic victories in the 1910 election. All 
Republican congressional candidates were defeated. Morehead's ele- 
vation to the state chairmanship obviously did not heal the rift in 
Republican ranks. Furthermore, while Morehead eschewed the use 
of patronage as a political weapon he came to depend upon the spoils 
of office to assert his influence in the party. He claimed to be an 
amateur in politics but the men upon whom he depended for advice 
and support were experienced and sophisticated politicians. 

Morehead's dynamic leadership and challenge to the Republicans 
also prompted renewed attacks from the Democrats. Josephus Daniels 
launched a counteroffensive immediately; in banner headlines his 
newspaper announced "Republican Slogan Adopted Yesterday: 
Butler, Booze, Boodle, Bonds." It was said that Morehead was com- 
pletely dominated by Marion Butler and would present a respectable 
front for his sinister schemes. The News and Observer thundered, "Who 
is the leader whom the Republicans will follow in this campaign. He 
is a pilferer! Pilferer! Contemptible traducer!" Bondholding syn- 
dicates financed Butler and Morehead, the newspapers declared, and 
if Republicans were successful at the polls the state would be forced 
to pay principal and interest on the repudiated bonds. The local self- 
government plank was allegedly inserted by the liquor interests bent 
upon securing local option legislation. But the equivocal plank that 
was finally inserted in the platform, said the Democrats, betrayed the 
financial support that had been forthcoming from the liquor lobby. 
Although Republicans made no outward bid for the support of the 
Negro, Daniels maintained that later a calculated effort would be 
made to secure the Negro vote. 75 The intensity of the approaching 
campaign revealed that Morehead had profoundly stirred both politi- 
cal parties. As a businessman politician without previous experience 
he had impressed his style of campaigning upon Republicans in the 
brief span of two years. 

75 The News and Observer, August 11, 1910; see also, The News and Observer, 
August 12, 13, 14, 20, 1910. 



By James W. Patton* 

A South Carolina poet, more effective in appraising than in im- 
proving the literary production of his native section, once wrote: 

Alas for the South, 
Her books are grown fewer, 
She never was much given 
To literature. 

That such a characterization would have applied with especial rele- 
vance to mid-nineteenth-century North Carolina is abundantly evi- 
dent from the comments of both unfriendly and friendly contempor- 
aries. Traveling through the South in 1856, Frederick Law Olmsted 
reported that "North Carolina has a proverbial reputation for the 
ignorance and torpidity of her people; being, in this respect, at the 
head of the Slave States." 1 Three years later the Spirit of the Age 
(Raleigh) observed that "according to the Census of 1850, there was 
more of ignorance in North Carolina, in proportion to population, than 
in any other state in the Union." 2 

The state's low rank in education was quite naturally reflected in 
the reading habits of its people, of which there were frequent com- 
plaints from newspaper editors and other interested persons during 
the ante-bellum period. The Southern Weekly Post (Raleigh) la- 
mented in January, 1852, that "The spirit of reading is too low among 
our neighbors. Few, except professional men among us, have libraries 
that would furnish, separately, a month's reading to a true 'helluo 
librorum/ " 3 

* Dr. Patton is Director of the Southern Historical Collection and Professor of 
History, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He delivered this presiden- 
tial address at the dinner meeting of The North Carolina Literary and Historical 
Association in Raleigh on December 4, 1964. 

1 Frederick Law Olmsted, A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States (New York: Dix 
and Edwards, 1856), 366. 

2 Spirit of the Age (Raleigh), July 20, 1859, quoted in Guion Griffis Johnson, 
Ante-Bellum North Carolina: A Social History (Chapel Hill: The University of North 
Carolina Press, 1937), 805, hereinafter cited as Johnson, Ante-Bellum North Carolina. 

3 Southern Weekly Post (Raleigh), January 24, 1852, quoted in Johnson, Ante- 
Bellum North Carolina, 805. 

170 The North Carolina Historical Review 

In addition to factors which affected the population generally, 
there were special restrictions upon the reading habits of women. The 
ideal woman was cultivated in the "polite arts" of dancing, music, 
drawing, and embroidery. She was fond of reading, said the Leisure 
Hour (Oxford), "but whenever she commenced a work without hav- 
ing previously been directed by some judicious and thoughtful friend, 
she would lay the book aside forever the moment her eyes fell upon 
an impure thought/' 4 

To the conditions thus described there were, of course, notable 
exceptions, one of which is well represented by Mrs. Catherine Ann 
(Devereux) Edmondston of Halifax County whose Civil War diary 
shows its author to have been an avid reader, well acquainted with a 
wide variety of books and periodical literature. 5 A lineal descendant 
on her father's side from Jonathan Edwards; and through her mother 
from Samuel Johnson (1696-1772), a Church of England minister in 
colonial Connecticut and first president of King's College in New 
York; from William Samuel Johnson (1727-1819), a member of the 
Federal Convention of 1787 from Connecticut and first president of 
Columbia College in New York; and from the Bayard, Livingston, 
and other old Knickerbocker families, Mrs. Edmondston, according 
to one theory of genetics, might be thought to have inherited her 
reading habits from some one or more of her scholarly forebears. It 
is more probable that she derived an interest in books from associa- 
tions in her childhood home and from tutors employed for her and 
her five sisters 6 by her father, Thomas Pollock Devereux, himself a 
graduate of Yale and master of arts from The University of North 
Carolina, a well-known Raleigh lawyer, United States district attor- 
ney, and reporter for the state Supreme Court, and operator of the 
family plantations, "Runeroi," "Barrows," "Connecanara," "Montrose" 
and "Polenta" in Bertie, Northampton, and Halifax counties. All that 
is known of his daughter's formal education is that for a time in the 
late 1830's she attended a school for girls conducted at Belmont, the 
former residence of Ludwell Lee in Loudoun County, Virginia. 7 

Mrs. Edmondston and her husband 8 lived near Scotland Neck at 

* Leisure Hour (Oxford), November 18, 1859 quoted in Johnson, Ante-Bellum North 
Carolina, 228. 

6 This diary, in four manuscript volumes running from June, 1860, through July, 

1865, with a few additional entries during October-December, 1865, and January, 

1866, is preserved in the State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh. It has 
recently been edited for publication by James W. Patton and Beth Crabtree, herein- 
after cited as Diary. 

6 One of these sisters, who appears to have been similarly educated, was Mary 
Bayard (Devereux) Clarke who became one of North Carolina's best known poets. 

7 See Diary, October 21, 1861, and August 29, 1862. 

8 Patrick Muir Edmondston, a native of Charleston, South Carolina. The Edmonds- 
tons were married in 1846 and sometime thereafter went to live at "Barrows," one of 

Reading in Halifax County 171 

"Looking Glass" and "Hascosea," two plantations which they oper- 
ated, moving their residence back and forth from one to the other at 
different seasons of the year. As the mistress of nearly 100 slaves, an 
enthusiastic gardener, and an armchair strategist following almost 
daily through the newspapers the military fortunes of the Confederacy 
on both the eastern and western theaters of war, she enjoyed few 
leisure moments to record in the diary which she kept throughout 
the war years. Nevertheless she found time to read constantly in the 
better types of literature, the results of which, along with excerpts, 
quotations, and citations from works previously read, she employed 
in illustrations, descriptions, analyses, and analogies in her own 

In a time and place when Bible reading was regarded as an im- 
portant part of the Plan of Salvation, it was to be expected that ability 
to quote from the Holy Scriptures would be a distinguishing mark 
of any reasonably well-read person; and so it was with Mrs. Edmond- 
ston. In commenting upon the fact that Major Robert Anderson, 
though otherwise beleagured in Fort Sumter, was being allowed to 
buy fresh vegetables in the Charleston market in February, 1861, she 
wrote that "in place of simply feeding her enemy, South Carolina 
'brings forth butter in a lordly dish/ though in better faith than did 
Jael" (in the Song of Deborah and Barak). 9 In April of the same year 
when her husband was about to enter the Confederate army, she 
noted that his absence "will be hard to bear, but courage! 'As thy days, 
so shall thy strength be,' " 10 and on a Sunday in the following July, 
after attending church, she was moved to write that "never did I so 
desire the gift of song that I too, in the words of Deborah the Proph- 
etess, might 'sing unto the Lord/ Non nobis Domine. Non nobis 
Domine, but unto thy name be the praise." 11 

She taunted Lincoln and Seward with the threat that in retribution 
for their war of conquest, "conscience must at some time awake and 
'thy brother's blood cryeth from the ground/ " 12 When Lincoln made 
what she considered "so egregious a blunder in the art of king-craft" 
by ordering the arrest and banishment of Clement L. Vallandigham, 
she exulted that "Job's wish, 'Oh! that mine enemy had written a 
book/ comes to us now"; 13 when W. W. Holden began to inveigh 
against President Jefferson Davis in The North Carolina Standard 

the Devereux plantations in Northampton County, from which they moved prior to 
1850 to the Scotland Neck area. 

"Diary, February 18, 1861, quoting Judges 5:25. 

10 Diary, April 23, 1861, quoting Deuteronomy 33:25. 

11 Diary, July 21, 1861, quoting Judges 5:3 and Psalms 115:1. 
32 Diary, May 8, 1862, quoting Genesis 4:11. 

"Diary, June 25, 1863, quoting Job 31:35. 

172 The North Carolina Historical Review 

(Raleigh), she enjoined him to "'respect the powers that be, for they 
are ordained of God' "; 14 and when Davis persisted in keeping Brax- 
ton Bragg in command, "in spite of his repeated failures," she tried 
"to obey the Psalmist's injunction and not exercise myself in great 
matters, or things too high for me.' " 15 On more joyous occasions she 
could exclaim like Zechariah that "'We are prisoners of hope,'" 16 
and with the Psalmist that " 'The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant 
places; yea, I have a goodly heritage.'" 17 When enemy attacks were 
reported as imminent she found refuge in the thought that the Lord 
" 'shall be thy shield and buckler' " and that " 'He will not suffer thy 
foot to be moved and He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor 
sleep' "; 18 when Confederate victories over more strongly entrenched 
forces were announced, she remembered that '"He giveth not the 
race to the swift nor the battle to the strong' "; 19 and when Federal 
successes had been registered on the battlefield, she could find con- 
solation in " 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.' " 20 

A southern Methodist bishop was once quoted as saying, "In my 
time I used to read Shakespeare and Scott and all those writers. But 
nowadays I read nothing but the Bible." 21 Not so with Mrs. Edmond- 
ston, who not only read but also remembered and quoted from the 
works of the Bard of Avon. Of Senator John J. Crittenden, whom she 
considered to "be in his dotage," because "he drivels so about this 
'Glorious Union,'" during the Washington Peace Conference in Feb- 
ruary, 1861, she wrote " 'Let me not live after my flame lacks oil to 
be the snuff of younger spirits,' and his flame lacks it most essential- 
ly." 22 With a similar animus on another occasion she likened a junior 
officer of the Scotland Neck Mounted Riflemen, who had incurred her 
disfavor, to Monsieur Parolles, "'that gallant militarist who had the 
whole theorick of war in the knot of his scarf and the practice of it in 
the chape of his dagger.'" 23 

Though oppressed with "a terrible sense of insecurity" in early 
1862, she was thankful to be living "almost as usual 'in piping times 
of peace.' " 24 In a moralizing vein, she observed that " 'Here's that, 

"Diary, September 11, 1863, quoting Romans 12:21. 
15 Diary, November 29, 1863, quoting Psalms 131:1. 
18 Diary, May 10, 1862, quoting Zechariah 9:12. 
"Diary, October 6, 1862, quoting Psalms 16:6. 

18 Diary, October 29, 1862, quoting Psalms 91:4; January 2, 1863, quoting Psalms 

"Diary, February 3, 1863, quoting Ecclesiastes 9:11. 

20 Diary, June 20, 1863, quoting Psalms 12:19. 

21 Ernest Gruening (ed.), These United States (New York: Boni and Liveright, 2 
volumes, 1923), I, 84. 

^D.ary, March 7, 1861, quoting Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well, Act I, 
Scene 2. 

28 Diary, quoting Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well, Act IV, Scene 3. 

24 Diary, quoting, with variation, Shakespeare, King Richard III, Act I, Scene 1. 

Reading in Halifax County 173 

which is too weak to be a sinner, honest water'" is "the same idea 
which Mad. Malabran (Maria Felicite Garcia) uttered when after 
drinking a glass of cold water she wished it was 'a sin to give it a 
zest' "; 25 and when it appeared that General George Gordon Meade 
had allowed his government to edit one of his dispatches in such a 
way as to exaggerate the number of men and guns lost at Falling 
Waters in July, 1863, she warned him that "you were said to be a 
gentleman, but 'it is hard to touch pitch without being defiled/" 26 
Again, when feeling that her journal was growing too discursive, she 
feared that she had dwelt too long " 'in the alms basket of words' and 
that like Parolles I have apparently 'been at a great feast of language 
and stolen the scraps.'" 27 

The great "histories" of Shakespeare furnished many quotations 
admirably suited to Mrs. Edmondston's descriptions of military opera- 
tions during the Civil War. Generals French and Milroy will fight 
General Lee "eight hours 'by Shrewsbury clock.'" 28 "Yankee volun- 
teers will be like Glendower's 'spirits from the vasty deep' and we may 
well ask Hotspur's question, 'but will they come when you do call 
for them?'" 29 And when "'there be three Richmonds in the field,' 
we can sit afar and watch out . . . who outgenerals the other and 
amuse ourselves with their stratagems." 30 

If, as is sometimes suggested, Sir Walter Scott rivaled St. Paul as 
a formative influence upon the mind of the Old South, 31 Mrs. Ed- 
mondston's reading habits would provide some evidence of the truth 
of this assertion. Walking with her husband through a part of their 
grove one day and noting how fast the trees were growing, she "could 
not but think of Dumbiedyke's advice to his son, to be 'ay slicking 
down a tree— it'll be growing while you are sleeping.' " 32 In reference 
to less sylvan surroundings, she wrote in February, 1861, that all 
South Carolina will consider Major Anderson at Fort Sumter "a brave 
and Christian gentleman ... 'a foe man worthy of their steel,' " and 
of Jeb Stuart she wrote two years later that "'one blast upon his 

36 Diary, May 5, 1862, quoting Shakespeare, Timon of Athens, Act I, Scene 2. 

26 Diary, July 29, 1863, quoting Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, Act III, 
Scene 3. 

27 Diary, September 8, 1863, quoting Shakespeare, Love's Labours Lost, Act V, 
Scene 7. The lines were spoken by Costard, not Parolles. 

28 Diary, July 11, 1863, quoting Shakespeare, King Henry IV, Part I, Act V, Scene 4. 

29 Diary, October 31, 1863, quoting Shakespeare, King Henry IV, Part I, Act III, 
Scene 1. 

80 Diary, June 17, 1864, quoting Shakespeare, King Richard HI, Act V, Scene 3. 

81 See William E. Dodd, The Cotton Kingdom (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale 
University Press, 1921), 62-63, 81; Holland Thompson, The New South (New Haven, 
Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1921), 208-209; Clement Eaton, The Mind of the 
Old South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1964), 184, 186-187, for 
suggestions to this effect. 

82 Diary, October 15, 1862, quoting Scott, The Heart of Midlothian. 



174 The North Carolina Historical Review 

bugle horn were worth ten thousand men/ " 33 Toward the end of the 
war, when the fortunes of the Confederacy were waning, she heard 
that "a battle with as yet doubtful results was in progress between 
Hood and Sherman." She did "not like such doubts"; with Kirkpatrick 
who thought that Bruce should make certain that he had slain the 
Red Comyn, she would "like to mak siccar/ " 34 

Although the Bible, Shakespeare, and Scott appear to have been 
read the most purposefully by Mrs. Edmondston, these works account 
for only a small segment of the literature with which she was familiar. 
In a religious frame of mind she turned to the English divines and 
theologians, including Sydney Smith, Isaac Watts, Frederick William 
Robertson, and Richard Whately. 35 Joseph Butler she "tried for a 
time" but found his Fifteen Sermons on the moral nature of man 
preached at Oxford in 1726, to be "not a pabulum for my daily fare 
In February, 1861, she read and liked an essay on giddiness in An 
drew Kennedy Hutchison Boyd's Recreations of a Country Parson; 
and in June, 1863, she complained of "suffering under one of Hannah 
More's two ills of life"— biliousness. 38 

She knew and liked Emerson's "American Scholar" well enough to 
quote with approbation " whenever McGregor sits, there is the head 
of the table'"; 39 but she characterized the same author's "Self-Reli- 
ance" as "a polluted stream and I know not which disgusts me most, 
his utter want of principle or his depth of folly. Such a tissue of imita- 
tive nonsense! Such a very weak tincture of Carlyleism, embodying 
doctrines and practices that strike at the root of every precept of 
morality both divine and human. . . . Truly the Yankee nation seems 
to have followed his teachings, for they lie today, and tomorrow re- 
place the first by a second as false as the first whose only merit is 
that it contradicts its predecessor." 40 

Mrs. Edmonston shared the contemporary southern dislike of 

83 Diary, February 3, 1861, and May 6, 1863, quoting Scott, The Lady of the Lake, 
Canto V, Stanza 4, and Canto VI, Stanza 18, respectively. 

34 Diary, September 4, 1864, quoting Scott, Tales of a Grandfather, First Series, 
Chanter VI. 

85 Diary, August 2 and December 12, 1860; February 6, 1861; March 20, 1862. 

86 Diary, January 31, 1863. 

87 Diary, February 6, 1861. 

38 Diary, June 17, 1863. Hannah More (1745-1833), an English religious writer, 
was subject to successive illnesses of a bilious nature, references to which occur in 
her letters. William Roberts (ed.), Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Mrs. 
Hannah More (New York: Harper and Brothers, 2 volumes, 1834), I, 67; II, 215, 289. 

89 Diary, March 27, 1861. Emerson's sentence was "Wherever MacDonald sits, there 
is the head of the table," but it is usually quoted with the substitution of "MacGregor" 
for "MacDonald." 

40 Diary, April 22, 1863. This outburst against Emerson was occasioned by Mrs. 
Edmondston's concern over the reading habits of her niece, Rachel Jones, "whose 
mother has unfortunately allowed her to dabble in his polluted stream." 

Reading in Halifax County 175 

Charles Dickens, considering Wilkie Collins' No Name, which she 
was reading in July, 1863, as "far superior to Great Expectations," 
which she adjudged "should rather be Great Disappointments ." 41 In 
common with most southern people of her class and station, she 
nourished resentment against Harriet Beecher Stowe, even to the 
extent of expressing a dislike for Harriet Elizabeth Georgiana Leve- 
son-Gower, Duchess of Sutherland at whose London residence, Staf- 
ford House, Mrs. Stowe had been entertained at a levee and there 
presented with a gold bracelet in the form of a slave chain as a gift 
from the duchess. 42 

In a more charitable mood, she regarded Lucy Hutchison's 
Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchison, which she read, "for the 
second or third time" in 1862, as one of the finest pictures of domestic 
love and happiness in the language. Noting, however, that Colonel 
Hutchison's descendants fell from the state and cultivation of their 
forebears and in all probability no longer "know that they had such 
an ancestor," she contrasted this situation with that of the "noble 
house of Stanley," whose blood "runs quicker through their veins as 
they read the 'Defense of Lathom House' than it does in those of other 
people, enthusiastic tho they be, who cannot say, as a Stanley can, 
'Charlotte de la Tremoille was my grandmother.' " 43 

A list of English poets either quoted or mentioned as having been 
read by Mrs. Edmondston would include, from an early period, The 
Battle of Chevy Chase ("Like Withrington in doleful dumps" [when 
his legs were smitten off, he fought upon his stumps]), 44 Sir Walter 
Raleigh, The Lie ("Goe Soul, the body's guest"), 45 and Edmund 
Spenser, The Faerie Queen ("Dan Chaucer, Well of English Unde- 
fyled"), 46 followed by Milton's Paradise Lost ("from noon to dewy 
eve") 47 and Dry den's Alexanders Feast, or the Power of Music 
("none but the brave deserve the fair"); 48 and from a still later 

41 Diary, July 7, 1863. 

42 Diary, December 12, 1860. 

43 Diary, March 20, 1862. Colonel John Hutchison (1615-1664) was an English 
Puritan solider whose career draws its chief interest from the Memoirs written by 
his wife after the death of her husband but not published until 1806 (afterward often 
reprinted). Charlotte de la Tremoille (1599-1664), daughter of Claude, due de Thouars, 
and granddaughter of William the Silent, Prince of Orange, was the wife of James 
Stanley (1607-1651), seventh earl of Derby. She defended Lathom House, seat of the 
earls of Derby, from the Parlimentary forces in 1644. Leslie Stephens, Sidney Lee, 
and others (eds.), Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University 
Press, 29 vols., 1921-1961), XVIII, 935-936, hereinafter cited as Dictionary of National 

44 Diary, July 9, 1863. 

45 Diary, October 20, 1864, also attributed to Joshua Sylvester (1563-1618) and to 
Sir John Davies (1570-1626). 

46 Diary, July 22, 1862. 

47 Diary, October 8, 1863. 

48 Diary, September 18, 1862. 

176 The North Carolina Historical Review 

period, Anna Seward, 49 George Canning, The Friend of Humanity and 
and the Knife-Grinder, 50 Lord Byron, The Bride of Ahydos ("The 
gardens of Gul in their bloom"), 51 Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The 
Rime of the Ancient Mariner ("a painted ship upon a painted 
ocean"), 52 William Wordsworth, Lucy ("She dwelt among the un- 
trodden ways"), 53 Lord Tennyson, The Charge of the Light Brigade 
("Someone had blundered," whether like Lord Lucan or Lord Cardi- 
gan she could not remember), 54 Mrs. Felicia D. Hemans, "Flowers 
to strew in the conqueror's path." 55 and Robert Burns, The Cotters 
Saturday Night ( "Auld Clarthes look amaist as weel as new" ) , "Epis- 
tle to a young friend" ("If self the wavering balance shake 'tis rarely 
right adjusted"), and "Death and Dr. Hornbook" ("Wee sma hours 
ayout the twal"). 56 American poets similarly treated would include 
John Trumbull, McFingal ("No rogue e'er felt the halter draw with 
good opinion of the law"), 57 Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Morituri 
Salutamus, 58 and Richard Henry Wilde, "My life is like the summer 
rose." 59 

Too sophisticated and independent to allow her reading habits to 
be circumscribed by any pietistic ban on novel reading, Mrs. Edmond- 
ston seems, nevertheless, to have been only mildly interested in this 
type of entertainment. She was disappointed with Bulwer Lytton's 
A Strange Story, characterizing it as "a collection of horrors, un- 
accountable and mysterious," combining "modern mesmerism and 
clairvoyance with medieval necromancy and demoniacal domination 
in a manner at once clumsy and ridiculous" and definitely inferior 
to the same author's The Caxtons, My Novel, and What Will He Do 
With It?" 60 At one and the same time she delineated Victor Hugo as 
a "sentimental apologist who wrote Fantine from a pair of moral 
stilts," and Eugene Sue as "a radical, a red republican, and an ad- 
mirer of the French Revolution and had his impossible theories full 
sway, heaven would blush at the spectacle presented to it." 61 "Re- 

49 Diary, July 25, 1862. 
"Diary, July 13, 1862. 
61 Diary, June 1, 1862. 
ra Diary, April 15, 1861. 
68 Diary, April 4, 1864. 

54 Diary, July 10, 1862. George Charles Bingham (1800-1888), third Earl of Lucan, 
was largely responsible for the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava on October 
25, 1854. James Thomas Brudenell (1797-1868), seventh Earl of Cardigan was the 
commander of the brigade. Dictionary of National Biography, III, 136-138. 

55 Diary, April 24, 1861. 

"Diary, December 3, 1863; February 10, 1861; January 27, 1862. 

57 Diary, May 30, 1864. 

68 Diary, January 21, 1861. 

"Diary, July 21, 1861. 

60 Diary, February 20, 1863. 

* Diary, June 12, 1863. 

Reading in Halifax County 177 

sorting to old Blackwood's for light literature," as the war progressed 
and the supply of new books grew scarcer, she found John Wilson 
("Christopher North"), Dies Borealis; or Christopher under Canvas 
most entertaining and instructive." 62 In the summer of 1864 she read 
and liked Mrs. Mary Elizabeth (Braddon) Maxwell's Aurora Floyd, 
very likely the Confederate edition published in Richmond by West 
and Johnson in 1863. 63 

"Lord Burleigh's nod," Mrs. Nicely's "clean house and a clean con- 
science," and "a peculiarly terrible Mrs. Grundy" testify respectively 
to Mrs. Edmondston's acquaintance with Richard Brinsley Sheridan's 
The Critic, Thomas Morton's School of Reform, and the same author's 
Speed the Plough. 64 Barthold Georg Niebuhr (Roman History), John 
Gillies (A History of Greece), Edward Gibbon (The Decline and 
Fall of the Roman Empire), John Lothrop Motley, (Rise of the Dutch 
Republic), 65 Thomas Babington Macaulay (History of England), 66 
and Lord Clarendon (History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in 
England) are among the historians with whose works she was familiar, 
the last named of these being the source of one of her favorite quota- 
tions, telling how Lord Falkland, "sitting among his friends, after a 
deep silence and frequent sighs, would, with a shrill and sad accent, 
ingeminate the word Peace, Peace." 67 High adventure she found in 
Jean Froissart's Chronicles, 68 William Walker's The War in Nicaragua 
(whose author she denounced as a "blood thirsty selfish bucca- 
neer"), 69 (Garnet Joseph Wolseley), "A month's visit to the Confed- 
erate Headquarters" (published in Blackwood's Magazine in January, 
1863 ), 70 and David Flavel Jamison's Life and Times of Bertrand du 
Guesclin, 71 a book of stately figures and stirring episodes of the Hun- 
dred Years War which, though bearing a Charleston, South Carolina, 
imprint of 1864, was actually printed in England and thus twice ran 
the blockade. In the less spectacular field of cookery, she knew about, 
though she may not have read, the works of Louis Eustache Ude ( The 
French Cook) and Alexis Soyer (A Shilling Cookery for the People). 72 

From Plutarch's Lives she recalled a passage quoting Aemilius 
Paulus as saying that "it required more genius to order a feast well 

62 Diary, August 20, 1864. 

63 Diary, August 29, 1864. 

64 Diary, April 1, June 1, 1862; October 15, 1863. 
66 Diary, March 20, 1864; January 9, 1865. 

66 Diary, July 25, 1862; July 14, 1863. 
67 D ! ary, March 17, 1862; September 4, 1863. 
• Diary, March 19, 1865. 

69 Diary, March 19, 1865. 

70 Diary, October 19, 1863. 

71 Diary, March 19, 1865. 

"Diary, December 8, 1860; February 24, 1863. 

178 The North Carolina Historical Review 

than to marshal an army," 73 and from the same author derived a 
suggestion which led her to write in February, 1862, that she would 
"not be surprised if the much talked of Currency Bill should make 
nails a legal tender in imitation of Lycurgus' iron money." 74 Toward 
the end of August, 1862, she had recently read 120 pages of Jean 
Charles Leonard Simonde de Sismondi, Litterature du Midi de 
YEurope (obviously in translation), a "rather dull work, tracing the 
downward course of the Italian muse just now. From Tasso to Goldoni 
and Gozzi." 75 Two weeks later she had "got to Calderon in the 
Spanish literature" in the same book, but her niece having asked for 
the book to read, she was left with "only Leigh Hunt's Italian Poets, 
and Boiardo, Pulci, Ariosto, Tasso, and even Dante, etc. are run 
through by him almost as expeditiously as Sismondi dispatches them, 
so there is not much to be gained there." 76 

Mention of "Undine" and "Rodomonte" would suggest that Mrs. 
Edmondston knew something at least about Friederich Fouque's prin- 
cipal work 77 and that she may have read or read about Matteo Maria 
Boiardo's Orlando Inamorato. 78 Although she ascribes to herself, "a 
double portion of that 'Jacobs' Ladder by which Jean Paul says 'men 
ascend to heaven,' " 79 it is most likely that she was acquainted with 
Johann Paul Friedrich Richter only through Thomas Carlyle's Ger- 
man Romance; and her venture into the literature of Portugal would 
be more impressive had she not quoted The Lusiad of Luiz de Camo- 
ens as recounting a meeting of Neptune and "Lope de Vega [instead 
of Vasco da Gama] off the Southern part of Africa." 80 

Only a few of the many more books and authors referred to in one 
way or another in the diary upon which this paper is principally based 
can be mentioned here. Among these would be Francis Bacon, 
Essays; Laurence Sterne ("That hateful moralist"); 81 Joseph Addison 
and Richard Steele, The Spectator; Edward Young, Night Thoughts; 
John Selden, Table Talk; and Gilbert White, Natural History of Sel- 
horne; along with fugitive references to Samuel Johnson, Lord Ches- 
terfield, and Robert Walpole. 

In addition, it should be noted that Mrs. Edmondston was a regular 
reader of newspapers. From the firing on Fort Sumter to the sur- 

73 Diary, January 21, 1863. 

74 Diary, February 16, 1864. 

75 Diary, August 29, 1862. 

78 Diary, September 11, 1862. 

77 Undine, a fairy romance about a water nymph of that name, published in 1811. 
Mentioned in Diary, January 30, 1862. 

78 Diary, April 18, 1864. 

79 Diary, May 2, 1862. 

80 Dary, January 6, 1863. 

81 Diary, March 28, 1862. 

Reading in Halifax County 179 

render at Appomattox, she kept up with the progress of the war, 
entering at frequent intervals in her diary long descriptions of strat- 
egy, tactics, and logistics, both Union and Confederate, as these 
appeared to her in the accounts she read in the papers, all interspersed 
with denunciations of Yankee villainy and praise or blame for Con- 
federate statesmen, generals, and soldiers as they may have been, 
or seemed to her to be, responsible for victories or defeats of the 
southern arms. 

Just as "one swallow maketh not summer," so it is that this impres- 
sive record of one person's reading does not prove that the level of 
literacy and literary taste in North Carolina generally was higher 
than that described by the contemporary commentaries quoted at the 
beginning of this paper. Nonetheless, it is both interesting and in- 
structive to know that this woman living for long periods of time 
during the war years, as she once expressed it, "on an island, a kind 
of Anglo-Saxon Robinson Crusoe with Ethiopians only for companion- 
ship," 82 had both the access to and the inclination to read so much 
of the literature that must have been beyond the reach and cognizance 
of most North Carolina women, even those of Mrs. Edmondston's 
class and station. 

Diary, February 27, 1865. 


By George V. Taylor* 

I am honored by your invitation to speak in place of the distin- 
guished poet and critic, one of your own, who was to have addressed 
you tonight. His standing, and that of those who have spoken in other 
years, shows that you are used to hearing worthwhile things. Thank 
you for calling upon me. 

Unfortunately, I am in no position to speak to your main interests, 
which I take to be the history and literature of the state, or, more 
broadly, the South. The only country I know well is eighteenth- 
century France, particularly during that great Revolution which a 
British historian has recently called the turning point of modern 
history. (Obviously, none of his ancestors fought on either side in 
the War Between the States.) Moreover, anyone like myself, raised 
and educated in another part of the country, having lived only twelve 
years in the South, does well to leave the interpretation of southern 
history and literature to those who have a native appreciation of it. 
Any comments such a person might attempt would be salted with 
errors and misunderstandings that betray his distant origins. What 
confirms me in my caution is the memory of an unfortunate review 
that appeared several years ago in the leading professional historical 
journal of France. A French historian who writes habitually in my 
field had spent a rainy week end, as brilliant Frenchmen do, writing 
a book on American culture. His reviewer, one of two French special- 
ists in American history, praised his work. "Our colleague," he wrote, 
"knows all the landmarks of American literature. He knows the works 
of the greatest American writers— Hemingway, Dos Passos, Faulkner. 
He even knows the writers of second rank, like John O'Hara and 
Houghton Mifflin." Determined not to commit such a gaucherie, I 
renounce speaking on themes that most of this audience could exploit 
more authoritatively and capably than I. 

* Dr. Taylor, Associate Professor of History, The University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill, presented this paper at the evening session of The North Carolina 
Literary and Historical Association, December 4, 1964. Dr. Allen Tate, who had 
been scheduled to speak, was unable to appear because of illness. 

History, Literature, and the Public 181 

Instead I want to take up the old question of how history and 
literature are related. This audience is a fraternal combination of the 
two professions. Moreover, between southern historians and literary 
figures there is mutual respect, a common concern with common prob- 
lems, and a notoriously active working alliance. In the South histori- 
ans are admitted to literary societies. Faulkner addresses the South- 
ern Historical Association. Professor Woodward dedicates a book to 
Robert Penn Warren and quotes abundantly from Warren, Tate, 
Wolfe, Faulkner, and Eudora Welty. This collaboration no doubt 
exists because, as Tate has said, the southern school of writers pro- 
duces "a literature conscious of the past in the present." In France 
there are also writers conscious of the past in the present, but they 
are not on good terms with historians, and the dissociation of his- 
torians and men of letters in France is in an extreme way sympto- 
matic of how these two professions regard one another in other 
countries. It began in 1868, when Monod, editor of the Revue his- 
torique and ex officio chieftain of the academic historians, laid it down 
that historians must be scientists, not only in their research and 
writing but also in the inmost recesses of their souls. He seems to have 
looked upon literature as a corruption of the mind. And because 
positivism was regnant and he had patronage, he had his way. French 
historians changed themselves into scientists, and one way of de- 
claring one's scientism was to announce a distrust of literature and 
everything that suggested it. "Never," said the medievalist Fustel de 
Coulanges at his retirement, "have I permitted an eloquent word to 
pass my lips." (What a boast!) To this day when French academic 
historians organize interdisciplinary colloquia they invite only fellow 
scientists— geographers, demographers, sociologists, economists, and 
psychologists. The novelists, dramatists, poets, critics, philosophers, 
and theologians are excluded from the club. 

The coldness between history and literature in France has not 
been thawed by what literary men have written about historians. 
Many of you know the satire on history and historians written by 
Anatole France under the title Penguin Island. A young man sets out 
to write the history of the Penguins, a race of birds, astonishingly 
like Frenchmen, that a medieval hermit converted to Christianity, 
and then, with God's help, transformed into men. In the preface he 
repeats the advice of the eminent historians he consulted before start- 
ing his research. One of them tells him: 

What is the good, my dear sir, of giving yourself so much trouble, and 
why compose a history when all you need do is to copy the best-known 

182 The North Carolina Historical Review 

ones in the usual way? If you have a fresh view or an original idea, if 
you present men and things from an unexpected point of view, you will 
surprise the reader. And the reader does not like being surprised. He 
never looks in a history for anything but the stupidities that he knows 
already. If you try to instruct him you only humiliate him and make 
him angry. Do not try to enlighten him; he will only cry out that you 
insult his beliefs. 

And then, this, which is crushing: 

Historians copy from one another. Thus they spare themselves trouble 
and avoid the appearance of presumption. Imitate them and do not be 
original. An original historian is the object of distrust, contempt, and 
loathing from everybody. 

Do you imagine, sir, . . . that I should be respected and honoured as I 
am if I had put innovations into my historical works? And what are 
innovations? They are impertinences. 

Apparently, what the historian distrusts in the man of letters is the 
freedom the latter enjoys. The novelist or dramatist takes life as he 
knows it, projects it in imaginative ways, remolds it for emphasis, 
creates characters and events as he chooses, and decides for himself 
how the story will end. He is even free to create a completely fictiti- 
ous situation, as has been done in some historical novels. In fact, the 
only limitations on the liberties of writers are those laid down by 
critics, which may be defied, and those laid down by publishers, 
which may not. Now the historian works under restrictions. He is the 
prisoner of his documentation. Where the documentation falls short, 
he resorts to inference, but in his conscience he knows it is better to 
suspend judgment, which is very hard to do. His plots and characters 
are given in the sources, and he must take them as they are, without 
adding color, altering the sequence, or changing the end of the story. 
All his training, all his professional experience, teach him to distrust 
invention, fantasy, and creativity. He is happy to be emancipated from 
the freedom of an artist, and that is why the claim of being scientific 
brings him peace of mind. 

Despite the historian's distrust of literature, and the literary man's 
complacency toward the historian, their work has had points of con- 
tact. Historical novelists and dramatists supposedly use histories for 
reference and sometimes read original sources so as to get the back- 
ground right. C. S. Forester, the creator of that gifted and gallant 
neurotic, Captain Hornblower, habitually does research in Admiralty 
papers, and although he takes great liberty with the chronology his 
description of naval life, combat, and technology is exact. For all its 

History, Literature, and the Public 183 

fantasy, the Hornblower saga is a fine reconstruction of the old 
British navy, and one may recommend it to students in a history 
course, although not, of course, for credit. Reciprocally, historians 
make use of literature. Several years ago a young Frenchman named 
Jean Chevalier, impressed with the preponderance of crime and 
poverty in the Paris described by Balzac, Victor Hugo, and Eugene 
Sue, set out to investigate this side of Parisian history in the 
original sources. He found that the novelists had not exaggerated 
the crime and poverty of the 1840's, and he rounded out their view 
of the Parisian poor people by using administrative records, police 
interrogations, accounts of trials, records of the criminal courts, and 
documents on public welfare. Chevalier's book is a frightening one. 
He shows that the city was overcrowded with immigrants from the 
country, which was both overpopulated and depressed. Unemploy- 
ment was chronic. The structure of the family dissolved. The prob- 
lems of poor relief were insoluble. Utterly desperate, the poor resorted 
to thefts, holdups, and burglaries that they justified to themselves 
and to the police by their right to live. Their frustration expressed 
itself in occasional acts of brutality against the well-to-do, and even 
against those of their own kind whom they robbed. In the terrible 
winter of 1845 when an upper-class evening came to an end, those 
present said prayers because of the dangers of returning home at 
night, and, not relying entirely on divine aid, carefully loaded their 
pistols before stepping out into the dark. What Chevalier has done 
is to document and explain a situation so terrible that it seemed an 
invention or distortion by novelists, and in so doing he has given us 
our first systematic analysis of European urban life in the early 
nineteenth century and helped us to understand in new ways the 
insurrections of 1848. But we must not forget that his original clues 
came from literature. 

To say that historians and men of letters use the work of one 
another is not to show that they have much in common. However, 
one may go further and demonstrate that to some degree the historian, 
like the man of letters, is dependent on invention, imagination, and 
even intuition— those occult practices that supposedly belong only 
to art. It is easier to say that now than it would have been twenty 
or thirty years ago, when it would have been denied. But for sixty 
years in Europe and thirty in the United States the identification of 
history with empirical science has been undermined by inquiries into 
what the historian actually does with his evidence, and it is now clear 
that only part of what he does is scientific. The rest is creative, and 
the creative side of what the historian does is disconcertingly flexible 

184 The North Carolina Historical Review 

and determined in large part by his psychological peculiarities as a 
person. To some extent the historian cannot avoid being a creative 
artist, cannot avoid incorporating into his work something that no 
one else could add. What he writes is in some measure an expression 
of himself. 

On what basis can this be said? The key to the problem is to ask 
how well the historian, with all the science in the world, can approach 
the vanished reality that we call history-as-actuality. How much can 
he really know? And how much does he surmise? After three decades 
of professional discussion it is clear that what the historian knows 
about history is a reconstruction that takes shape in his mind as he 
reads the sources. What he presents to the public, and to himself, 
is not the actual past, but what may be called the documentary past, 
the past reflected in the records and other materials at his disposal. 
How close do the sources come to history-as-actuality? We know that 
many of them are false, misleading, fraudulent, and that many of 
our witnesses lie to us and, what is worse, to themselves. This kind 
of mischief we have learned to deal with by what is called internal 
and external criticism. But what is disconcerting is the incomplete- 
ness of the sources, or the gaps in the evidence. Obviously the 
evidence that we study is a residue— the preserved part of the record- 
ed part of the remembered part of the observed part of what happen- 
ed. And the evidence that we put in our books and lectures is only 
the relevant part of the preserved part of the recorded part of the 
remembered part of the observed part of what happened. In other 
words, much of the past is beyond recovery. What demonstrates this 
is that new sources occasionally come to light. We read them. If 
they are important we automatically enlarge or correct the recon- 
struction that we have distilled from records we already know. 
Therefore, the past with which we deal is not the flesh-and-blood 
past of living people, but the documentary past. We hope that this 
documentary past, this reconstruction distilled from sources, corre- 
sponds fairly well to the original, but who guarantees that we are 

The process by which historians distill reconstructions from docu- 
ments is a mysterious business about which no one talks or thinks 
a great deal. I have been referring to it, quite without reflection, as 
distillation, and distillation is a rather good word for describing our 
idea of what we do with evidence. We let it ferment in our minds 
until it takes on a congenial form and flavor. Then when we are 
satisfied with the brew, we bottle it, attach a label, and distribute 
it in wholesale lots. (Some of it is pungent and heady; some is stale 

History, Literature, and the Public 185 

and flat; a great deal is unfit for public consumption. ) But is fermen- 
tation what really goes on in our minds? Or is it science? Well 
science to a certain degree. Using what is called "cold logic," we 
search out and discard the lies that the witnesses tell, correct their 
errors, and sort out the events and put them in proper sequence, 
lest we botch up the narrative and put Gettysburg ahead of Chancel- 
lorsville. But there is also a lot of imagination going on. We guess or 
imagine what is needed to fill the gaps. For example, Lee moves 
from one place to another. If we don't know by what route he 
reached his destination we study our mental map of Virginia and 
trace it out on the simple assumption, usually correct, that, given 
what we know of Lee's situation he would have been shrewd enough 
to follow our road. At the same time we are guessing why Lee is 
making his move, particularly if he fails to tell us in his dispatches 
what he has in mind. We imagine him considering all that has happen- 
ed—the casualties, the loss of Jackson, the ruin of Hooker, reports 
from the cavalry, things happening here and there, and we make his 
mind explain his next move. Mr. Freeman, who lived with an enorm- 
ous documentation and treasured every recorded word, intonation, 
gesture, and facial expression of the Confederate generals, did 
that with great skill. He re-created for General Lee a mental activity 
that corresponds with everything that will probably ever be known 
about him, and what he did not say about Lee's mind he implied 
in his selection and arrangement of the material, his choice of words, 
his nuances, and the mood communicated by the rhythm of his 
sentences. With a superb touch, born of a lifetime spent with Lee 
and his lieutenants and perfected by his sympathetic identification 
with these soldiers of the South, Freeman re-created their characters, 
personalities, strengths, weaknesses, convictions, eccentricities, and 
their changing moods. This is historical imagination at its best. In 
the hands of lesser historians it oftens miscarries, particularly, when 
out of thin air, one creates for historical characters an intelligence ap- 
propriate to their achievements. We all know biographies in which 
historical figures like Bismarck are made to foresee every contingency 
and every move they will make. Nothing surprises them. But Free- 
man knew that even the most remarkable men ordinarily move from 
event to event, reorganizing their estimates and intentions as they go, 
stumbling often into either ruin or glory. This is partly what gives 
his work its strong flavor of authenticity. He honored the messages 
of the documents, even when they detracted from the wisdom of his 
generals. Still, what he did was highly imaginative and without his 
imagination it would have been much less remarkable than it is. 

186 The North Carolina Historical Review 

In other words, the historian's reconstruction of the past from the 
documents is an imaginative, creative act. To a serious degree, the 
writing of history is a creative process, an art. Like art, it is a highly 
individualized activity. The historian's capacity to understand through 
imagination is measured in one sense by the fertility of his own 
imagination and the way he responds to its signals. Working with 
those mental notations called facts, something in the historian's mind 
invents reconstructions which he either accepts or rejects. And the 
kind of reconstruction his mind invents and accepts depends on the 
peculiar way that he sees men and events, his feeling for human 
nature, his attitudes toward people, all of which are molded by his 
personal experience, including that which he acquired when very 
young. It is well known that in literature different authors invent 
different kinds of characters. Last Sunday in the Times a British critic, 
reviewing John O'Hara's latest volume of short stories, complained of 
what he called "these O'Hara people with their stone hearts, bleak 
conversation and almost total serfdom to money." (Fortunately, he 
said nothing about Houghton Mifflin. ) Are the historian's reconstruc- 
tions, like O'Hara's inventions, affected by his emotional attitudes 
toward human beings? If not, why do some historians insist on con- 
trolling historical personalities by bringing them under deterministic 
systems? Why do others revel for page after page in the eccentric 
misconduct of kings, presidents, cabinet ministers, financiers, and 
revolutionists? Why do some historians look only for political motives? 
Or economic motives? And why do others try to avoid the whole 
business by dodging off into economic or constitutional history? What 
kind of man habitually interprets history by inventing conspiracies on 
circumstantial evidence, when things are more easily explained on 
more obvious grounds? These differences of approach and touch are 
determined by something deeper than a historian's convictions, 
interests, or party alignment; they are grounded in his psychological 
formation. To some extent the imaginative reconstructions generated 
by his mind are expressions of his own singular personality. That is 
why the greatest biography of General Lee could have been written 
only by a man like Freeman. 

It is impossible to expel imagination from historical work. It is 
already there. Nothing shows it better than the way historians deal 
with cause and effect. When a historian speaks of causes he means 
the prior happenings or situations that had to exist before an event 
could occur. His problem is to separate from the hundreds of prior 
happenings or situations that he knows about those which had causal 
value. By what hocus pocus does he do this? In his imagination he 

History, Literature, and the Public 187 

rehearses the whole train of events. Would the states have gone to 
war without John Brown's raid? Or the election of Lincoln? Or the 
cotton economy of the South? Or the admission of new states? Would 
there have been a French Revolution if the royal treasury had been 
solvent? Or the harvest of 1788 abundant? Or Louis XVI married to 
someone other than Marie Antoinette? Science would settle the matter 
out of hand by experiment, but experiment is not our privilege, and 
nothing, not even the Ford Foundation, can make it so. Besides, the 
kind of experiment we want to perform would be hard on the 
variables, particularly on John Brown and the unfortunate queen, 
who would be executed many times before we finished our work. In 
fact, if actual historical experiments were possible they would, like 
vivisection, be outlawed as inhumane. Nevertheless, we make these 
experiments. We make them conjecturally, in our heads, using our 
imaginations. In effect, we ask ourselves whether the war would have 
come without Lincoln or John Brown, and we say that it would, but 
perhaps not in 1861. We ask ourselves whether the Revolution would 
have come without a bankrupt treasury and a bad harvest and, for 
the life us, we cannot imagine how it could have happened. In 
other words, we perform ideal experiments like those that physicists 
sometimes carry out on the mysterious levels in which they operate. 
But it is not a very conclusive procedure, and Charles A. Beard was 
so distrustful of it as to write that no historian should ever use the 
word "cause," although that stand did not prevent him from publish- 
ing two books on President Roosevelt's foreign policy in which he 
arranged the evidence in such a way as to imply that Roosevelt in- 
vited the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. He was, however, no 
hypocrite; you will not find the word "cause" in either volume. 

It is still a delicate matter to maintain in public that historians work 
imaginatively in a creative way. Whatever qualms one has are eased, 
however, when we recall that the greatest historians, like Freeman, 
owed much of their greatness to their imaginations. The nineteenth- 
century historian Leopold von Ranke, often regarded as a model 
practitioner of historical method, did not hesitate to describe historical 
personalities with the aid of what he saw, or felt, when studying 
their portraits. And this same von Ranke, who wrote at the outset 
of his career that he meant to portray the past "exactly as it happen- 
ed," was more indebted to intuition than he realized. Herbert Butter- 
field has pointed out that von Ranke, on the evidence that he had, 
came to conclusions that a rigorous logician would have rejected. 
And yet later research has proved him right. It was the "hunch," the 
subrational decision of a mind closely attuned to political and personal 

188 The North Carolina Historical Review 

realities, that sensed in the documents those hints that a sound 
logician would have ignored. 

The reason for emphasizing the historian's dependence on imagina- 
tion and intuition is to re-establish awareness of the common ground 
that historians and men of letters once thought they shared. History, 
after all, began as a branch of literature. It was only for less than a 
century that it pretended to be a science. Even during that period 
of imposture, in a secret, underground sort of way that many of them 
would have denied, historians, never entirely discarded moves and 
tactics that lay outside their official method. They even tolerated his- 
torians who wrote well, although they grumbled at their royalties. 
And they never completely reduced human nature to the level of 
uniformized material responding passively to general laws, though 
some tried hard to do so. They are now involved in efforts to explore 
human nature at depths once thought inaccessible and irrelevant to 
their work. In 1959 the president of the American Historical Associa- 
tion, in his presidential address, urged historians to find ways of 
applying the insights of depth psychology to historical interpretation. 
Because he spoke with the voice of Harvard, the profession listened 
with respect. The program he proposed can easily get out of hand, as 
it did with the writer of a paper, lately referred for my opinion, who 
argued that the execution of Louis XVI was essentially the killing 
of the primal father by the Freudian horde. But recently we have 
received studies of Martin Luther, Anne Hutchinson, and Woodrow 
Wilson in which the authors, using psychic clues, account more fully 
and satisfactorily than have other biographers for what they did, 
and without flagrant violations of sound method. 

Historians, then, have more in common with men of letters than 
they once believed. Their work has always called for decisions that 
cannot be made by appeals to the evidence alone. Their interpreta- 
tions express not only their conscious thoughts but also their feelings, 
and they have begun to grapple with the subrational side of the 
human past. If they have to recognize a disturbing freedom implicit 
in the ambiguity of their materials, they are happy to leave to litera- 
ture the burden of inventing everything. Their plots and characters 
will still be found in the sources. It would be a false move to 
reorganize the Department of History under the Curriculum in Com- 
parative Literature. 

Nevertheless, we may say that to some extent history and literature 
are partners in rendering a particular service to society at large. 
Directly and indirectly they inform public opinion, and their work 
in this connection is important. If any other proof were needed it 

History, Literature, and the Public 189 

would be found in the fact that totalitarian governments, which 
survive only by controlling public opinion, find it necessary to con- 
trol historical scholarship and the entire range of letters as well. In 
a democracy like ours public opinion is sovereign, absolutely in 
principle, nearly so in actuality. Our values teach us to leave it free. 
If it makes errors in judgment the remedy is not to suppress it, 
mold it, or rigidify it under compulsion, but to give it the means of 
becoming more realistic and mature. There are within us instinctive 
modes of thought that lead to unrealism and policy errors. One of 
these is the impulse to oversimplify and personalize whatever 
frustrates or angers us and to attack problems as we imagine them 
rather than as they actually are. 

It is impossible to make this clear without an example. There is a 
law that forbids Communists to speak at publicly supported colleges 
and universities in North Carolina. It is apparently based on the 
premise that an important problem facing the state has been created 
by Communist orators rather than by several decades of tragic history. 
It objectifies difficulties as a fictitious menace operating out of college 
lecture halls. The menace is imaginary, but, unlike the problem, 
it can be visualized and attacked. Those intimately concerned with 
university life and work know that there is no conspiracy to parade 
Communist speakers before the students, and, as informed citizens 
acting on their own initiative and responsibility, they have an obliga- 
tion to say so. Do universities want Communist speakers? Not partic- 
ularly. But they are ashamed at having to turn away those, specifically 
from Iron Curtain countries, who turn up in the normal traffic of 
academic life. They are ashamed because to turn them away is a 
confession of intellectual weakness. The unspoken implication of 
this law is that Communism, or Marxism, is a philosophy so realistic, 
so convincing, that the young, if they hear it, will embrace it. It tells 
Communists that intellectually they hold the winning cards, and 
that no effective rebuttal can be made against what they have to say. 
It says covertly to the students that if they hear a Communist speech 
they will have no choice but to believe it, and that their patriotism 
can be preserved only by shielding them from every expression of the 
Communist point of view. In this way the law generates in the minds 
of the young a deep-laid sense of defenselessness and inferiority that 
can be exploited with real effect if ever they come before a Communist 
interrogator in a war prison camp. 

It is not only a harmful law but a useless one. If the sorry state of 
Communist doctrine in the twentieth century were understood it 
would never have been proposed, or, even if proposed, it would not 

190 The North Carolina Historical Review 

have been passed. Things that have happened during the last century 
have thoroughly exploded the ideas of Marx, his predictions, his 
theory of social classes, and even his analysis of capitalism. In 1946 
one of the leading Soviet economists, Professor Varga, said that 
capitalism had learned how to master its instabilities, and he 
foresaw no immediate prospects of its collapse. In this, to judge from 
what has happened in the last eighteen years, he was right. But his 
estimate was so flagrant a contradiction of the official ideology that 
he was banished from academic and public life, and we heard 
nothing further of him until three years ago. Disrespect for Marxism 
in the Soviet world is widespread. In the universities most students 
treat their required courses in Marxism with contempt and are glad 
to leave them behind. It is, in fact, a jerry-built philosophy, held 
together with shinplasters and baling wire, and to build walls against 
it is to give it a prestige that it in no way deserves. 

This law exists because as a people we are short on knowledge of 
ideologies and ideological criticism, of what is going on elsewhere, 
of how people react to despotism, of the multiple currents and cross- 
currents of ideas. We are confused about the particular strengths and 
weaknesses of our adversaries and about the tragic and terrible 
upheavals that have made them what they are. It is doubtful that 
we really understand ourselves, our problems, the issues of our times, 
and the way in which they have been shaped by the past. The trouble 
is that we are all too busy to be exact. Our estimates of reality come 
too often from scare headlines, rumors, personal antagonism, and the 
aimless drift of random conversation. This is said not only because 
it is deplorable, but also because it underscores the value of whatever 
realism— by which I mean the accurate appreciation of all that is 
complex and remote, whether cherished or feared— finds its way into 
public opinion. Seen in this light, the work of novelists, dramatists, 
essayists, critics, poets, and even historians is of crucial importance. 
All those who study, think, write, publish, and teach contribute, 
however indirectly, to the public mind. If I were asked to recommend 
a book on the Russian Revolution I should not know whether to name 
Chamberlin's history of it or Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago. If I were 
asked to recommend something on Stalinism I should not know 
whether to prefer Isaac Deutscher's exellent biography or Arthur 
Koestler's Darkness at Noon. If I were asked to recommend titles on 
American history and the history of the South to someone who wanted 
a better understanding of his own country, I should appeal to you, 
and you would tell me about Stephenson, Coulter, Woodward, 
Sydnor, and Phillips, along with Faulkner, Wolfe, and Warren, not 

History, Literature, and the Public 191 

to mention the distinguished persons here tonight. If someone un- 
accustomed to detailed historical works were interested in under- 
standing the enormous struggles that have transformed the Chinese 
people since 1911 what better beginning could he make than to 
read The Sand Pebbles, that magnificent first and last novel written 
by one of the most remarkable men ever to live in Chapel Hill, the 
late Richard McKenna? In all these suggestions, which you would 
want to multiply, I have freely confounded history and literature 
because they serve, each in its own way, the same purpose. They 
bring us into contact with what is remote in space and time. They 
make clear what happens to people under the impact of historical 
change, their conflicting loyalties, and the way they readjust to the 
world in which they have to live. They illuminate the many shades 
of good and evil, the extremely complex dimensions of guilt, and the 
subtle impulsions and psychic checks and balances that make up 
real rather than fictitious human nature. In all these books we should 
often find ourselves, or persons very like ourselves, caught up in 
situations not unlike our own. And for all this work, for whatever 
reasons it may have been undertaken, I would make this justification: 
that those societies are sane that struggle with real problems and 
real enemies rather than wrestling with hobgoblins that exist only in 
the confusion of their minds. 


By John G. Barrett* 

Although William Tecumseh Sherman could not recall saying 
"War is hell," he did state: "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms 
than I will. War is cruelty and you cannot refine it." 1 It was in the 
fall of 1862 that he developed his philosophy of total war which he 
thought would make conflict "so terrible" that the South would 
exhaust all peaceful remedies before commencing another struggle. 2 
Considering all the people of the South as enemies of the Union, 3 
Sherman planned to use his military forces against the civilian popula- 
tion as well as the armies of the enemy. He believed this plan of action 
would demoralize not only the noncombatants but also the men under 
arms. Nevertheless, he held out to his enemies the sincere promise 
of a helping hand if they would lay down their arms and rejoin the 
Union. It was not a sense of cruelty and barbarism that prompted 
Sherman to formulate his theory of total war. This conception was 
the outgrowth of a search for the quickest, surest, and most efficient 
means to win a conflict. 4 

The full application of this new philosophy of war was to be 
applied by Sherman in campaigns through Mississippi, Georgia, and 
the Carolinas. In Mississippi the Federal army destroyed the state's 
resources and lines of communication and demonstrated to the in- 

* Dr. Barrett, Professor of History at Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, 
Virginia, presented this speech at the luncheon meeting of The North Carolina Liter- 
ary and Historical Association in Raleigh, December 4, 1964. 

a Mark Antony DeWolfe Howe (ed.), Home Letters of General Sherman (New 
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1909), 309, hereinafter cited as Howe, Home Letters 
of Sherman; William Tecumseh Sherman, Memoirs of General W. T. Sherman (New 
York: D. Appleton and Company, 2 volumes, 1875), II, 126, hereinafter cited as 
Sherman, Memoirs. 

2 R. N. Scott and Others (eds.), The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the 
Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington, D.C.: Govern- 
ment Printing Office, 70 volumes [127 books, atlases, and index], 1880-1901), Series I, 
XVII, Part II, 260, hereinafter cited as Official Records. 

8 Sherman, Memoirs, I, 267. Guerrilla activity and unorganized civilian resistance 
in the region around Memphis helped to bring Sherman to this conclusion. 

4 An excellent study of Sherman's philosophy of total war is John Bennett Walters, 
"General William T. Sherman and Total War" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, 
Vanderbilt University, 1947) ; Basil Henry Liddell Hart, Sherman: Soldier, Realist, 
American (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1929), 426. 

Sherman's March Through North Carolina 193 

habitants how cruel a matter war could be. In Georgia Sherman was 
to repeat the Mississippi performance but on a much larger scale. 

When the Georgia operations ended at Savannah on December 21, 
1864, all the accepted rules of strategy called for the immediate 
transfer of Sherman's 60,000 veterans from the Georgia coast to 
Richmond where Ulyssess S. Grant had Robert E. Lee besieged 
behind fortifications. 5 General Grant was desirous of this move, 6 but 
much to his dismay Sherman voiced strong objections to such a plan. 
He hoped, instead, to march to Richmond by way of Columbia and 
Raleigh in the Carolinas. 7 Every step northward from Savannah, 
Sherman felt, was as much a direct attack on Lee as though he were 
operating within sound of the artillery of the Army of Northern 
Virginia. He was firmly convinced that an application of total war 
in the Carolinas would have a direct bearing on the outcome of 
Grant's struggle around Richmond. 8 

The combination of Sherman's persistence and the news of George 
H. Thomas' devastating victory over J. B. Hood at Nashville 9 per- 
suaded the reluctant commanding general to grant permission for 
the move through the Carolinas. 10 

Sherman's plan of campaign called for feints on both Augusta and 
Charleston and a march directly on Columbia and thence to Golds- 
boro by way of Fayetteville on the Cape Fear. Goldsboro was chosen 
as the destination because that city was connected to the North 
Carolina coast by two railroads running respectively from Morehead 
City (via New Bern) and Wilmington. By this circuit the Federal 
force could destroy the chief railroads of the Carolinas and devastate 
the heart of the two states. 11 

Sherman planned to cut himself off completely from his base in 
Savannah; hence he could expect no government supplies until he 

5 Colin R. Ballard, The Military Genius of Abraham Lincoln (New York: The 
World Publishing Company, 1952), 223. Because of the heavy demands on ocean 
transportation it probably would have taken two months to have moved Sherman's 
entire army to Richmond. Sherman, Memoirs, II, 224. 

9 Sherman, Memoirs, II, 206. 

7 Sherman, Memoirs, II, 209. 

8 Sherman, Memoirs, II, 213, 227. 

'Before departing for his "March to the Sea" Sherman dispatched Thomas to 
Tennessee to deal with Hood. 

10 Sherman, Memoirs, II, 223-224. 

u Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part II, 154. "The subsidiary operations which 
were intended to co-operate with Sherman's March northward from Savannah were 
two. First, the capture of Fort Fisher at the mouth of the Cape Fear River in North 
Carolina, and second, the transfer of Schofield from Middle Tennessee to the Carolina 
coast, where with the Tenth Corps under Major General A. H. Terry and the Twenty- 
third under Major General [Jacob] Cox, he was to reduce Wilmington and advance 
upon two lines from that city and from Newbern to Goldsboro, at which place it was 
expected a junction with Sherman would be made." Jacob D. Cox, The March to the Sea 
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1886), 137, hereinafter cited as Cox, March to 
the Sea. 


The North Carolina Historical Review 

James E. Taylor drew the picture in 1888 of Sherman's men foraging for food. 
From files of State Department of Archives and History. 

reached the Cape Fear River. His wagons could carry only limited 
provisions; thus the army would have to "forage liberally on the 
country during the march." To regulate the foraging parties, very 
strict orders were issued. 12 

These instructions were in complete compliance with the accepted 
rules of warfare. Yet there was wide discrepancy between the orders 
and the actions of some of the men. In Georgia many of the foraging 
parties had degenerated into marauding bands of mounted robbers 
which operated not under the supervision of an officer but on their 
own. These groups committed every sort of outrage. Most of the 
pillage and wanton destruction of private property in the two Caro- 
linas was the work of the "bummers," "smoke house rangers," or 
"doboys," as this peripheral minority of self -constituted foragers was 
called. 13 

32 Sherman, Memoirs, II, 175-176. 

18 Manning Ferguson Force, "Marching Across Carolina," in Sketches of War 
History, 1861-1865. Papers Read before the Ohio Commandery of the Military Order 
of the Loyal Legion of the United States (Cincinnati, Ohio: R. Clarke and Company, 
6 volumes, 1888-1908), I, 15. On most occasions these self-constituted foragers were 
referred to as "bummers." The origin of the term is obscure but it was in use at the 

Sherman's March Through North Carolina 195 

When Sherman commenced his march through the Carolinas the 
latter part of January, 1865, the meager Confederate forces that 
could possibly be brought to oppose him were scattered from Virginia 
to Mississippi. 14 Only Joe Wheeler's cavalry stood in the path of 
Sherman's veterans as they moved northward. By March 3 the Federal 
army had reached Cheraw, its last stop in South Carolina. Here the 
general learned that his former opponent, Joseph E. Johnston, had 
replaced (Pierre) Gustave Toutant Beauregard as commander of the 
Confederate forces in North and South Carolina. He now concluded 
that Johnston would unite his widely scattered forces and at a place 
of his own choosing strike one of the Federal columns on the move. 
Fully aware that the battle he wished to avoid now seemed unavoid- 
able, Sherman put his army in motion for Fayetteville, some 70 miles 
northeast. 15 

South Carolina was now free of this army, which had applied total 
war in its severest terms within her borders. Lieutenant Charles S. 
Brown of the Twenty-first Michigan never spoke truer words than 
when he said: "South Carolina may have been the cause of the whole 
thing, but she has had an awful punishment." 16 

As early as January, 1865, the North Carolina newspapers had 
begun to prepare the people of the state for invasion. 17 But with the 
fall of Fort Fisher on January 15, and the occupation of Wilmington 
a week later, the people of North Carolina almost surrendered them- 
selves to a wave of despondency. Late in February General Lee 
declared that the despair of the North Carolinians was destroying 
his army. He wrote to Governor Zebulon B. Vance: "Desertings are 
becoming very frequent and there is reason to believe that they are 
occasioned to considerable extent by letters written to the soldiers 
by their friends at home." 18 

General Sherman entered North Carolina with the confident ex- 
time of the "March to the Sea." A member of Sherman's staff termed the "bummer" 
as "a raider on his own account, a man who temporarily deserts his place in the 
ranks and starts upon an independent foraging mission." Henry Steele Commager 
(ed.), The Blue and the Gray: The Story of the Civil War as Told by Participants 
(Indianapolis, Indiana: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 2 volumes, 1950), II, 952. 

14 Gustave Joseph Fieberger, Campaigns of the American Civil War (West Point, 
New York: United States Military Academy Printing Office, 1914), 401-414; Alfred 
Roman, The Military Operations of General Beauregard in the War between the 
States, 1861-1865, Including a Brief Sketch and Narrative of his Services in the War 
with Mexico (New York: Harper and Brothers, 2 volumes, 1884), II, 337-341. 

M Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part II, 1,247. 

"Charles S. Brown to Etta (Brown?), April 26, 1865, Charles S. Brown Papers, 
Duke Manuscript Collection, Duke University, Durham, hereinafter cited as Brown 

"Lloyd Lewis, Sherman: Fighting Prophet (New York: Harcourt, Brace and 
Company, 1932), 499, quoting Daily Progress (Raleigh), January 21, 1865. 

18 Robert E. Lee to Zebulon B. Vance, February 24, 1865, Zebulon B. Vance Letter 
Book, Archives, State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh. 

196 The North Carolina Historical Review 

pectation of receiving a welcome from its supposedly large number 
of pro-Union citizens. 19 Thus he had his officers issue orders for the 
gentler treatment of the inhabitants and, when the state line was 
crossed, circulate new instructions regulating foraging activities. 20 But 
no orders were drafted prohibiting the burning of the great pine 
forests within the state. North Carolina's turpentine woods blazed in 
fantastic "splendor as 'bummers' touched matches to congealed sap 
in notches on tree trunks." Seldom did the soldiers pass up an oppor- 
tunity to fire these pine forests for burning rosin and tar created a 
spectacle of flame and smoke that surpassed in grandeur anything 
they had ever seen before. One Federal soldier wrote: "Among the 
curiosities of our march the burning of these factories was the most 
curious. 21 Another remarked that oftentimes the smoke could hardly 
escape through the green canopy above and being like a pall, it 
created a feeling of awe as though one were within the precincts of 
a grand old cathedral. 22 

On March 8 North Carolina for the first time felt the full weight 
of the Federal army, the right wing having crossed the state line on 
this date. General Sherman, traveling with the Fifteenth Corps, made 
his headquarters near Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church, a region his 
soldiers thought looked "real Northern like. Small farms and nice 
white, tidy dwellings." 23 However, the torrential rains which set in 
on that date soon turned the roads into a sea of mud and water, 
making them almost impassable for troops and trains. 24 The most 
formidable obstacle in the path of the army lay in the dark, swirling 
waters of the Lumber River and its adjacent swamps. This region 
brought from Sherman the remark: "It was the damnest marching I 
ever saw." 25 The wagons and artillery could only be dragged along 
by the mules with the assistance of soldiers who either tugged at 

19 George W. Nichols, The Story of the Great March (New York: Harper and 
Brothers, 1865), 222, hereinafter cited as Nichols, Great March. 

20 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part II, 719. 

21 John R. Kinnear, History of the Eighty-Sixth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 
During Its Term of Service (Chicago, Illinois: Tribune Company's Book and Job- 
Printing Office, 1866), 101, hereinafter cited as Kinnear, History of Eighty-Sixth 
Regiment. The Confederate soldiers also fired these great pine forests. Bell Irvin 
Wiley (ed.), Rebel Private Front and Rear, by William A. Fletcher (Austin: Univer- 
sity of Texas Press, 1954), 140. 

23 William D. Hamilton, Recollections of a Cavalryman of the Civil War after Fifty 
Years (Columbia, South Carolina: F. J. Heer Printing Company, 1915), 195-196, 
hereinafter cited as Hamilton, Recollections. 

23 Charles W. Wills, Army Life of an Illinois Soldier: Letters and Diary of the 
Late Charles W. Wills (Washington, D.C.: Globe Printing Company, 1906), 357, 
hereinafter cited as Wills, Army Life. 

24 Elijah P. Burton, Diary of E. P. Burton, Surgeon Seventh Regiment Illinois 
(Des Moines, Iowa: The Historical Records Survey, 2 volumes, 1939), II, 68. 

25 William W. Calkins, The History of the One Hundred and Fourth Regiment of 
Illinois Volunteer Infantry (Chicago, Illinois: Donahue and Hennebery, 1895), 294. 

Sherman's March Through North Carolina 197 


ropes out ahead of the teams or put their hands to the wheels 
The teamsters, reins in one hand, constantly punctuated the air with 
a dexterous whip lash to remind the poor mules of their "black 
military heart" and endless faults. Every sentence was ordained with 
an oath. 27 "Such a wild scene of splashing and yelling and swearing 
and braying has rarely greated mortal eyes and ears" wrote one 
Ohioan of Sherman's army. After darkness the work was carried on 
in the eerie light of thousands of torches and blazing pine trees. 28 

The Federal cavalry under General Judson Kilpatrick crossed the 
Lumber River on March 8. Here Kilpatrick learned that the Con- 
federate cavalry under Wade Hampton was only a few miles in the 
rear and moving rapidly on Fayetteville. Hoping to intercept the 
enemy, he set a trap for them only to have his own camp surprised 
and put to flight on the morning of March 10 by the Confederate 
horsemen. To make his escape Kilpatrick, clad only in his under- 
clothes, had to spring from the warm bed of a lady companion, mount 
the nearest saddleless horse, and disappear into a neighboring 
swamp. 29 

Kilpatrick's escape on the morning of the surprise attack is as 
controversial a subject as the number of casualties suffered on each 
side. General Kilpatrick told an acquaintance after the war that on 
this particular morning he walked out of his headquarters in his 
slippers about daylight, as was his usual custom, to see that his 
horses were fed. 30 Such a habit was certainly the exception rather 
than the rule for most high ranking officers. A Confederate soldier 
in on this surprise attack presumed Kilpatrick to be the only example 
from Joshua to the nineteenth century of a major general who would 
walk out of a warm room in cold weather only partially dressed to 
see horses fed 100 yards away. 31 

Since the Federal cavalrymen eventually drove the Confederates 
out of their camp, there is still disagreement over who actually got the 
better of the fighting at Monroe's Cross-Roads, contemptuously tag- 

26 Wilbur F. Hinman, Story of the Sherman Brigade (Privately printed, 1897), 918, 
hereinafter cited as Hinman, Sherman Brigade. 

37 Daniel Oakey, "Marching Through Georgia and the Carolinas," in Robert U. 
Johnson and Clarence C. Buel (eds.J Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (New- 
York: The Century Company, 4 volumes. 1888), IV, 677. 

88 Hinman, Sherman Brigade, 918. 

29 John G. Barrett, Sherman's March Through the Carolinas (Chapel Hill: The 
University of North Carolina Press, 1956), 125-129, hereinafter cited as Barrett, 
Sherman's March. 

30 Matthew C Butler, "General Kilpatrick's Narrow Escape," in Ulysses R. Brooks, 
Butler and His Cavalry in the War of Secession, 1861-1865 (Columbia, South Carolina: 
The State Company, 1909), 446-447. 

81 J. W. DuBose to M. C Butler, February 12, 1908, U. R. Brooks Papers, Duke 
Manuscript Collection. 

198 The North Carolina Historical Review 


ged by the Federal infantry as "Kilpatrick's Shirt-tail Skedaddle." 
Yet the fact stands that by engaging Kilpatrick in battle, Hampton 
was able to open the road to Fayetteville which the Federal camp 
blocked. The Confederate cavalry joined General W. J. Hardee near 
Fayetteville that night. Hardee's small force, after evacuating Charles- 
ton on February 18, had been moving north just ahead of Sherman's 

The Confederate forces withdrew across the Cape Fear on March 
11, burning the bridge behind them. At the same time the Federal 
advance entered the city from the south. Sherman especially wanted 
to reach this river port in order that he could retake the arsenal 
located there. At the outbreak of war the Confederates had taken 
over the United States Arsenal in the city and for four years this 
valuable goverment property had served the South. 

Fayetteville suffered a great deal as a result of the Federal oc- 
cupancy. Besides the destruction of numerous public buildings, in- 
cluding the arsenal, 33 there was considerable pillaging by the "bum- 
mers," but this plundering of private property was done, for the 
most part, before General Absolom Baird took command of the city 
and garrisoned it with his three brigades. 34 

While at Fayetteville, Sherman took the opportunity to replace all 
rejected animals of his trains with those taken from the local citizens 
and to clear his columns of the vast crowd of white refugees and 
Negroes that followed the Federal army. He called these followers 
"twenty to thirty thousand useless mouths." 35 To General A. H. 
Terry at Wilmington he wrote: "They are dead weight to me and 
consume our supplies." 36 At the same time he complained to Grant 
that he could leave Fayetteville the next day were it not for the 
large crowd of refugees that encumbered his army. 37 

By the middle of March, Sherman had his entire force across the 
Cape Fear, and the move on Goldsboro had begun. The general was 
in a happy frame of mind as he watched his troops march by. The 
campaign was running like clockwork. Goldsboro, he felt sure, would 
be his in a few days. 

From Savannah to Fayetteville, Sherman had moved his army in 
flawless fashion, but from this latter place to Goldsboro his operations 
were definitely characterized by carelessness in the management of 

32 Hamilton, Recollections, 199. 

83 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part II, 763. 

34 Wills, Army Life, 360; Charles S. Brown to Etta (Brown), April 26, 1865, Brown 

35 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part II, 803. 

86 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part II, 817. 

87 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part II, 795. 

Sherman's March Through North Carolina 199 

a large army. He placed little importance on William J. Hardee's 
delaying action at Averasboro on March 16. 38 Also, he allowed his 
columns to become strung out to such extent that Johnston came 
close to crushing one of the Federal corps at Bentonville. At this 
small town west of Goldsboro, Johnston had skillfully managed, on 
March 19, to concentrate his scattered forces. Completely ignorant 
of this Confederate move, Sherman allowed his Fourteenth Corps 
to be surprised by Johnston. For a while it looked as though the Con- 
federates would carry the day, but Federal reinforcements late in 
the afternoon blunted the Confederate offensive. More Union troops 
reached the field during the day of March 20, and by the next day 
Sherman had his entire army in the vicinity of Bentonville. That night 
Johnston withdrew his forces to Smithfield. 39 

General Sherman claimed victory at Bentonville, the largest battle 
of the war in North Carolina, on the grounds that he was in possession 
of the battlefield when the fighting closed, and that Johnston had 
failed in his attempt to crush the Federal left wing. 40 Still the general 
had little of which to boast. His force was more than twice the size 
of his opponent's. Yet on March 19, the Federals tottered on the 
brink of a resounding defeat. Sherman's conduct at Bentonville bears 
out the truth of one of his subordinate's statements: "Strategy was 
his strongest point. Take him in battle and he did not seem to be 
the equal of Thomas or Grant." 41 

Furthermore, Sherman failed to follow up his success by pursuing 
the enemy. Instead, he moved his army into Goldsboro. Awaiting him 
there were the forces of Generals Terry and Jacob D. Cox of John 
M. Schofield's command which had marched up from Wilmington 
and New Bern. 

The general's explanation to Grant as to why he pushed on to 
Goldsboro rather than after Johnston leaves something to be desired. 42 
In this communication he does not claim that his men were short of 
food or ammunition, "the only adequate excuse" for halting. He 
seemed to consider shoes, which were noticeably absent among the 
men, his most essential need. But the scarcity of footwear did not 
warrant a delay at this time. The Confederate soldiers were also 
without shoes. 43 

38 Barrett, Sherman's March, 148-158. 
89 Barrett, Sherman's March, 159-185. 

40 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part I, 27. 

41 T. C. Fletcher (ed.), Life and Reminisences of General William T. Sherman by 
Distinguished Men of His time (Baltimore, Maryland: R. H. Woodward Company, 
1891) 292 

42 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part I, 950. 

48 Although Sherman did not claim a shortage of food, he did tell Grant that he 
planned to pick up rations in Goldsboro. Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part I, 

200 The North Carolina Historical Review 

At Goldsboro Sherman was disturbed to find neither of the two 
railroads from the coast fully repaired and no supplies awaiting him. 
Nevertheless, he decided to change the foraging system. All foragers 
were ordered dismounted and placed in the ranks. Their horses and 
mules were turned over to the quartermaster corps, which meant 
quite a few animals. 44 "About half of this army are mounted," wrote 
a Federal soldier before this order went into effect. "It rather don't 
care to do much more walking. Nearly everyone has his own coach, 
cab, buggy, cart or wagon, drawn by horses or mules— blind or lame- 
colts or old worn out horses or mules. . . . General Sherman could 
now advertise a livery stable extensive enough to supply the whole 
country, provided they were not choice as to rigs." 45 

Still, the "corn-crib" and "fodder-stack" commandoes could look 
back upon a plentiful harvest between Fayetteville and Goldsboro. 
The countryside had supplied them with more forage, in some in- 
stances, than they could carry away. Meat and meal had been found 
in abundance. So skillfully had the "bummers" covered this region 
that the rooster no longer crowed in the morning because he no 
longer existed. Had the rooster escaped with his life there would have 
been no fence rail for him to perch on. At least, such was the opinion 
of one newspaper correspondent. 46 

As vital as the forager had been to the success of the campaign, 
General James D. Morgan of the Federal Fourteenth Corps regretted 
that he had to exclude him from praise and credit. He wrote: "I have 
some men in my command . . . who have mistaken the name and 
meaning of the term foragers, and have become under that name 
highwaymen, with all of their cruelty and ferocity and none of their 
courage. . . " 47 

Sherman's arrival in Goldsboro had been announced by the columns 
of smoke which rose from burning farmhouses on the south side of 
the Neuse, 48 but within the town itself the "bummers" had little 
chance to pillage and destroy because Schofield had occupied the 
place two days before they arrived and had stationed guards to 
prevent outrages. 49 

950; Alfred H. Burne, Lee, Grant and Sherman. A Study in Leadership in the 186^-65 
Campaign (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1939), 179. 

44 Official Records Series I, XLVII, Part I, 424, 972. 

^Edmund N. Hatcher, The Last Four Weeks of the War (Columbus, Ohio: Edmund 
N. Hatcher, 1891), 67-68, hereinafter cited as Hatcher, The Last Four Weeks. 

"Hatcher, The Last Four Weeks, 36. 

47 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part I, 487. 

48 Cornelia P. Spencer, The Last Ninety Days of the War in North Carolina (New 
York: Watchman Publishing Company, 1866), 94, hereinafter cited as Spencer, 
Ninety Days; Elizabeth Collier Diary, April 20, 1865, Southern Historical Collection, 
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

"Daily Conservative (Raleigh), March 27, 1865. 

Sherman's March Through North Carolina 201 

Goldsboro was entirely too small to hold much interest for the 
Federal soldiers. A trooper of the One Hundred and Third Illinois 
wrote in his diary that the "Town don't amount to anything" 50 while 
Lieutenant Charles S. Brown of Michigan referred to it as "a little 
7x9 sort of a hole about as large as Bentonville was once." 51 
Despite what they said, these men along with the great majority 
of Sherman's soldiers enjoyed, as one of them put it, "luxuriating 
in the delicious spring weather." 52 

By March 25, repairs on the railroad from New Bern were finished, 
and the first train from the coast arrived in Goldsboro. 53 This com- 
pleted the task Sherman had set out to do upon leaving Savannah. 
His army was now united with the armies of Schofield and Terry. 
Large supply bases on the North Carolina coast were available by 
rail, and the countryside from Savannah to Goldsboro, for an average 
breadth of 40 miles, had been laid waste. 

The general now decided it was time to discuss with Grant the 
plans for a junction of their armies around Richmond. He hoped to 
share with the Army of the Potomac the glory of capturing the 
Confederate capital. Late in the afternoon of March 25, Sherman 
boarded a train for City Point, Virginia, Grant's headquarters. The 
visit proved futile as the commanding general was not disposed to 
delay his own push against Lee until the troops at Goldsboro could 
join him. 54 So in five days Sherman was back in eastern North Caro- 
lina, busily addressing himself to the task of the reorganization of 
his army and the replenishment of stores. 

On April 10 he broke camp and started his march on Raleigh. 
When Sherman's move was reported to Johnston at Smithfield, he 
also put his small Confederate force in motion for the North Caro- 
lina capital. 

During the night of April 11, Sherman learned of Lee's surrender 
at Appomattox. The announcement of this momentous news the next 
day put the Federal soldiers in a hilarious mood, even as the march 
went forward. 55 Toward this capering army was coming a Confeder- 

m H. H. Orendorff and Others (eds.), Reminiscences of the Civil War from Diaries 
of Members of the One Hundred and Third Illinois Volunteer Infantry (Chicago, 
Illinois: J. F. Learning and Company, 1905), 203. 

61 Charles S. Brown to "his folks and anyone else," no date, Brown Papers. 

63 James M. Drake, The History of the Ninth New Jersey Veteran Volunteers 
(Elizabeth, New Jersey: Journal Printing House, 1889), 364. 

83 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part I, 28. 

"Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant (New York: Charles L. 
Webster and Company, 2 volumes, 1886), II, 460. 

58 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part III, 177, 180 ; Henry J. Aten, History of 
the Eighty-fifth Regiment, Illinois Volunteer Infantry (Hiawatha, Kansas: Regi- 
mental Association, 1901), 303. 

202 The North Carolina Historical Review 

ate locomotive. Inside the car were peace commissioners out of 
Raleigh. That night at Sherman's headquarters these emissaries un- 
successfully conferred with the general about a "suspension of hostili- 
ties." They did get from him, however, a promise of protection for 
both the state and municipal officials in the capital city. 56 

In the meantime the Confederate forces, along with Governor 
Vance, had evacuated Raleigh and Johnston had reported to Presi- 
dent Jefferson Davis at Greensboro. While there, Johnston learned 
of Lee's capitulation. The news of this disaster fully convinced the 
general that the Confederacy was doomed. He realized that his 
small army, its ranks growing thinner by the day, was no match for 

In Johnston's opinion, President Davis now had only one govern- 
mental power left, that of terminating the war, and he thought this 
power should be exercised immediately. In a conference with the 
President, he was able to get the chief executive, after much discus- 
sion, to authorize him to send Sherman, who was at Raleigh, a com- 
munication asking for a suspension of hostilities. 57 

That Sherman would arrive in Raleigh in the course of his march 
had been anticipated since the day he entered the state. 58 The local 
papers had kept the citizens posted on the progress of his march. 
This fact plus wild stories of Federal atrocities circulated by Lieuten- 
ant General Joe Wheeler's men were not very conforting thoughts for 
the local inhabitants. 59 Following the general practice of those Caro- 
linians caught in Sherman's path, the citizens of Raleigh hid their 
possessions in an effort to save them. Former Governor Charles Manly 
placed a portion of his possessions in a heavy wooden box and buried 
it three miles from the city. "It was a terrible job," he declared. "I 
laid on the ground perfectly exhausted before I could gain strength 
to mount my horse." 60 Soon after the Federal occupation of Fayette- 
ville, Governor Vance began the transfer of state records and huge 
military stores he had accumulated. To Graham, Greensboro, and 

56 For an interesting account of the surrender of Raleigh to the Federal forces, see 
Richard E. Yates, "Governor Vance and the End of the War in North Carolina," 
The North Carolina Historical Review, XVIII (October, 1941), 315-338. 

87 Sherman, Memoirs, II, 346-347; Joseph E. Johnston, Narrative of Military 
Operations, Directed, During the Late War Between the States, by Joseph E. Johnston, 
General, C.S.A. (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1874), 397-398, hereinafter 
cited as Johnston, Narrative. 

58 R. H. Battle to Cornelia P. Spencer, February 26, 1866, David L. Swain Papers, 
Southern Historical Collection, hereinafter cited as Swain Papers; Spencer, Ninety 
Days, 145. 

69 Andrew J. Boies, Record of the Thirty-third Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry 
from August 1862-August 1865 (Fitchburg, Massachusetts: Sentinel Printing Com- 
pany, 1880), 126. 

00 Charles Manly to David L. Swain, April 8, 1865, Swain Papers. 

Sherman's March Through North Carolina 


The James Bennett house, near Durham, was the scene of negotiations between 
Generals Sherman and Johnston, April 18, 1865. From files of State Department 
of Archives and History, reproduced from Frank Leslie's illustration in The Ameri- 
can Soldier in the Civil War. 

Salisbury were transferred 40,000 blankets, overcoats, and clothes; 
English cloth for about 100,000 uniforms; shoes, and leather for 
10,000 other pairs; 150,000 pounds of bacon; 40,000 bushels of corn, 
6,000 scythe blades; and large quantities of cotton cloth, yarns, 
cotton cards, and imported medical stores. 61 The last train out of 
Raleigh with supplies, records, and state officials aborad left the 
depot shortly before 9:00 p.m. on April 12. 62 

Sherman arrived in Raleigh early the next morning and immedi- 
ately set up headquarters in the governor's mansion which a member 
of his staff called "a musty old brick building ... in derision called 
the palace.'" 63 

Johnston's message asking for a suspension of hostilities reached 
the general on April 14. His immediate reply led to a meeting with 
Johnston at Daniel Bennett's farm house a few miles west of Durham. 
There on April 17 and 18 Sherman granted terms to his adversary 

^Zebulon B. Vance to Cornelia P. Spencer, February 17, 1866, Swain Papers. 
63 R. H. Battle to Cornelia P. Spencer, February 26, 1866, Swain Papers. 
■ Nichols, Great March, 296-297. 

204 The North Carolina Historical Review 

that restored to the South a large measure of its "status quo" ante- 
bellum condition. This generous agreement clearly shows that with 
Sherman, total war was a strategic not a vindictive matter. 64 

While these negotiations with Johnston were in progress, Sherman 
had the unpleasant task of announcing to his army the news of Presi- 
dent Lincoln's death. In order to prevent any serious disorders, he 
delayed releasing the announcement until precautionary measures 
could be taken to insure the safety of the city. 65 This move in all 
probability spared Raleigh a fate similar to that of Atlanta or Colum- 

The general assumed that his peace terms would be acceptable to 
the administration in Washington and for several days all went well 
for him. Raleigh, unmarred by the ravages of war, made an impression 
on both Sherman and his soldiers. The men, with but few exceptions, 
acclaimed the city's lovely trees, stately public buildings, fine resi- 
dences, wide streets, and well-kept lawns. To the members of the 
Eighty-sixth Illinois, "Raleigh was the handsomest city in Famous 
Dixie, it being neat and clean and its situation grand. . . ." 66 

The rural population of Wake and adjoining counties where Federal 
troops encamped did not fare as well as the citizens of the capital. 
George W. Mordecai wrote David L. Swain that farms in Wake, 
Orange, and Granville counties were "completely dispoiled of every- 
thing in the shape of provisions and forage." In addition many houses 
were either burned or torn down. 67 At Charles Manly's plantation 
three miles from Raleigh, the devastation was "thorough and un- 
sparing." Manly listed as lost all weatherboarding, flooring, windows, 
and furniture in his dwelling houses. Barns, sheds, and cotton houses 
were stripped of siding; fences were burned; gear was broken up. All 
hogs and poultry were either driven off or killed. Medicine, "excellent 
brandy," whiskey, wine, and 200 gallons of vinegar was taken. Federal 
wagon trains came out every day until 150 bushels of corn, 15,000 
pounds of fodder, 12,000 pounds of hay, and a few bushels of peas 
and wheat were hauled off. 68 

Approximately 30 miles west of Raleigh at the small university 
town of Chapel Hill, a division of Kilpatrick's cavalry was encamped. 

^Barrett, Sherman's March, 226-244; Raoul S. Naroll, "Lincoln and the Sherman 
Peace Fiasco — Another Fable?" The Journal of Southern History, XX (November, 
1954), 459-483. 

65 Sherman, Memoirs, II, 351 ; Jacob D. Cox, Military Reminiscences of the Civil War 
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2 volumes, 1900), II, 465. 

66 Kinnear, History of the Eighty-Sixth Regiment, 110. 

w George W. Mordecai to David L. Swain, May 15, 1865, Walter Clark Papers, 
Archives, State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh, hereinafter cited as 
Clark Papers. 

88 Charles Manly to David L. Swain, May 16, 1865, Clark Papers. 

Sherman's March Through North Carolina 205 

Those cavalrymen, however, resorted to very little pillaging and 
whiled away their time in much the same manner as the troops in 
Raleigh. Their commanding officer, General Smith D. Atkins, certainly 
was not interested in robbing the countryside. He was too busy 
courting President Swain's daughter, Ellie. 69 

While the troops were encamped in Chapel Hill, one could only 
speculate as to the outcome of this romance. Eleanor's parents cer- 
tainly did not know, having refrained from questioning her on the 
subject. It was not until after Atkins' departure on May 3 that the long 
awaited announcement came. In a short note addressed to her parents 
"Miss Ellie" stated that she intended to marry General Atkins. She 
reminded her parents that she was twenty-one years old and capable 
of judging for herself. In the face of the furor caused by her decision, 
the strong-willed Eleanor wrote a friend that "but one voice can 
prevent this affair, and that is higher than man." 70 The Almighty did 
not see fit to intervene and the couple was married August 23, 1865. 
It was a victory for "true love," wrote Cornelia Spencer. 71 

Surely Atkins, as he led his troops out of Chapel Hill in early May, 
felt that war is not altogether hell. 

Sherman's confidence that the war was over received a rude jolt on 
the morning of April 24 when Grant arrived at his headquarters with 
the news that the surrender terms were not acceptable in Washington. 
So once again Sherman met with Johnston. This time he offered, and 
the Confederate general accepted per force, the terms Lee had 
received at Appomattox. 

Rebuffed in his efforts to befriend the South politically, Sherman 
did what he could to alleviate the economic distresses in the region 
around Raleigh. Army commanders were ordered to "loan" the in- 
habitants at once all the captured horses, mules, wagons, and vehicles 
that could be spared from immediate use. Generals were encouraged 
to issue provisions, animals, and any public supplies that could be 
spared "to relieve present wants and to encourage the inhabitants to 
renew their peaceful pursuits and to restore relations of friendship 
among our fellow citizens and countrymen." Foraging was to cease 
and all provisions acquired were to be paid for on the spot. 72 

To Johnston, Sherman expressed the hope that the animals "loaned" 
the farmers would be enough to insure a crop. In closing, he repeated 

69 David L. Swain was president of the University. 

70 Hope S. Chamberlain, Old Days in Chapel Hill, Being the Life and Letters of 
Cornelia Phillips Spencer (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 
1926), 95. 

71 Cornelia P. Spencer Notebook, August 23-25, 1865, Southern Historical Collection. 
Cornelia Spencer was the daughter of Professor James Phillips. 

72 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part III, 322. 

206 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the familiar promise: "Now that the war is over, I am willing to risk 
my person and reputation as heretofore to heal the wounds made by 
the past war. . . Z' 73 He went on to say that he thought his feeling 
was shared by his army and that of Johnston also. In his reply the 
Confederate general informed Sherman that in all of their interviews 
he had been impressed by his sincere desire "to heal the wounds 
made by the (past) war." The most amazing line in this letter was the 
usually impassive Johnston's confession that the misfortune of his 
life was that of having had to encounter Sherman in the field. 74 

Sherman's plans for departure were temporarily interrupted with 
the arrival in Raleigh of the New York newspapers of April 24. These 
papers carried over Secretary Edwin M. Stanton's signature a War 
Department bulletin implying that Sherman had deliberately dis- 
obeyed Lincoln's orders concerning surrender negotiations and that 
for "bankers gold" he might allow Jefferson Davis, who was fleeing 
south at the time, to escape. 75 

The publication of this bulletin made Sherman angry. Reacting as 
if he were a caged lion, the general, before members of his staff, 
lashed out at Stanton as a "mean, scheming, vindictive politician who 
made it his business to rob military men of their credit earned by 
exposing their lives in the service of their country. He berated the 
people who blamed him for what he had done as a mass of fools, not 
worth fighting for, who did not know when a thing was well done. 
He railed at the press . . . which had become the engine of villifi- 
cation. . . ." 76 

Bitter at northern politicians and the press, Sherman now consid- 
ered as his best friends the defeated Confederates and the soldiers 
of his own army. In a letter to Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Sher- 
man voiced a strong feeling for the people of the South. He told the 
judge that in case of war against a foreign foe he "would not hesitate" 
to mingle with the southerners and lead them in battle. 77 In the same 
temper he wrote his wife, Ellen: "The mass of people south will 
never trouble us again. They have suffered terribly, and I now feel 
disposed to befriend them— of course not the leaders and lawyers, 
but the armies who have fought and manifested their sincerity though 
misled by risking their persons." 78 

73 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part III, 320. 

74 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part III, 336-337. 

n The New York Times, April 24, 1865; Sherman, Memoirs, II, 365. 

70 Carl Schurz, The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz with a Sketch of His Life and 
Public Services from 1869 to 1906 by Frederick Bancroft and William A. Dunning 
(New York: The McClure Company, 3 volumes, 1908), III, 116-118. 

77 Official Records, Series I, XLVII, Part III, 411. 

78 Howe, Home Letters of Sherman, 350. 

Sherman's March Through North Carolina 207 

On April 28 Sherman summoned to his headquarters in the Gov- 
ernor's mansion all corps and army commanders. He explained to 
them their duties after his departure. The necessary orders were 
completed and on April 29, Sherman departed by rail for Wilmington. 
He could leave Raleigh knowing he had honestly endeavored to 
shorten the road to reunion. If the terms first offered Johnston had 
been accepted, the southern people would have resumed the place 
they held in the Union in 1860, and the evils of congressional recon- 
struction might have been forestalled. 



By H. C. Bradshaw* 

North Carolina writers published more than 30 books of nonfiction 
during the year July 1, 1963- June 30, 1964; this is an impressive total. 
While some of the books contribute only to the numerical total, there 
are some of a quality which merit more than passing notice. Some 
may be accurately evaluated as scholarly, some as popular, and the 
classifications are not, in this case, mutually exclusive. 

While most titles in the nonfiction category are either history or 
biography, one concerns law, Foreign Divorce, by James H. Boykin; 
another prisoner rehabilitation, Work-Earn and Save, by Allen H. 
Gwyn; still another reports a European trip, European Report, 1963, 
by Mr. and Mrs. Holt McPherson; and a fourth portrays the ever- 
alluring Cape Hatteras, The Cape Hatteras Seashore, by David Stick 
and Bruce Roberts. A collection of nostalgic essays, Light and Rest, 
by Thad Stem, Jr., and a work of literary analysis and criticism, 
Elizabethan Drama and Shakespeare's Early Plays, by Ernest William 
Talbert, add still more variety. 

Four titles deal with the Negro, past and present: Harry Golden's 
Mr. Kennedy and the Negroes; Frenise A. Logan's The Negro in 
North Carolina, 1876-1894; In Quest of Freedom, by Virgil A. Stroud; 
and E-Qual-Ity Education in North Carolina Among the Negroes, 
by Hugh Victor Brown. 

Among the seven biographies on the list, two are about Baptist 
ministers: The Cullom Lantern, by James H. Blackmore, and Papa 
Wore No Halo, by Susan H. Jefferies. Other biographical subjects in- 
clude an educator, Blanford Barnard Dougherty, by O. Lester Brown; 
a physician, Mountain Doctor, by LeGette Blythe; an editor, My First 
Eighty Years, by Clarence Poe; a botanist, John Clayton, Pioneer of 
American Botany, by Edmund and Dorothy Smith Berkeley; and a 
racketeer, God's Gambler, by R. Frederick West. 

* Mr. Bradshaw, editor of the editorial page of The Durham Morning Herald, de- 
livered this paper at the morning session of The North Carolina Literary and 
Historical Association, December 4, 1964. 

Review of Nonfiction 209 

If an output of two county histories— Ashe County, A History, by 
Arthur L. Fletcher and History of Tyrrell County, by David E. Davis 
—seems a small addition to the county history shelf, six works on 
college history— if we may include in this category the Dougherty 
biography as a history of Appalachian State College, the Cullom 
biography as a picture of Wake Forest College, and Chancellor Robert 
B. House's reminiscences of college life, The Light That Shines, as a 
view of The University of North Carolina— plus three other titles 
make up for any deficiency in the local history category. The three 
college histories are The History of Western Carolina College, by 
William Ernest Bird; A History of Chowan College, by Edgar V. 
McKnight and Oscar Creech; and The University of North Carolina 
Under Consolidation 1931-63: History and Appraisal, by Louis Round 
Wilson. To these we may add one local church history, that of Mocks- 
ville's First Presbyterian Church by James W. Wall; one boarding 
school history, Ladies in the Making, by Ann Strudwick Nash; and 
the account of a local enterprise, a hotel begun and never finished, 
The Fleetwood Story, by James H. Toms. 

Other histories in the year's output take us much farther afield. 
Glenn Tucker's Dawn Like Thunder, a history of the Barbary Wars, 
is set largely in the Mediterranean world, with Americans, of course, 
playing major roles. Political Factions in Aleppo, 1760-1826, by Her- 
bert L. Bodman, Jr., is a narrowly specialized study in detail of a 
limited period in the history of Aleppo, a Syrian city of great antiquity. 
Page Shamburger's Tracks Across the Sky, which takes us not quite 
so far away and not so far back in time, relates the beginning of the 
air mail service in this country. 

In the list is some good, even fascinating reading; let us consider 
first some of the biographies. 

Edmund and Dorothy Smith Berkeley's biography of John Clayton 
is an important contribution to the history of American science. Clay- 
ton was a remarkable figure. Native of England, planter in Virginia, 
clerk of the Gloucester County Court, Clayton assembled and cata- 
loged data on the flora of his section and made several trips to the 
more remote parts of Virginia for specimens of plant life. He corre- 
sponded with and sent specimens to leading contemporary botanists 
at home and abroad, as John Bartram of Pennsylvania, Carolus Lin- 
naeus of Sweden, Johann Friedrich Gronovius of Holland, and Peter 
Collinson of England. 

The Berkeleys have carried on exhaustive research concerning 
this unusual man. Because of gaps in the discoverable data, they 
have not been able to record the full account of Clayton's life. But 

210 The North Carolina Historical Review 

they have used to advantage the material they have been able to find, 
and the result is a significant work. The authors merit commendation 
for making available the life story of a man, who though distant from 
fellows of kindred spirit and similar botanical interests nevertheless 
carried on scientific labors which contemporary scholars in the field 
recognized as valuable. Isolated in life, John Clayton has been hap- 
pily rescued from an undeserved obscurity in history by the Berkeleys. 

One of the most important contributions in the entire range of Tar- 
heel biography was made during the year in Clarence Poe's auto- 
biography, My First Eighty Years. Dr. Poe, whose lamented death 
took place only two months ago, richly deserved the accolade of 
North Carolina's first citizen. Editor of The Progressive Farmer, his 
interests, like those of Chremes in Terence's Heauton Timorumenos, 
touched every area of concern to humanity. He campaigned no less 
indefatigably for better farm living than for better farming methods. 
His advocacy of the crepe myrtle is responsible for its planting by 
the hundreds of thousands on lawns and driveways. Clarence Poe, 
who was largely self-educated though brilliantly so, was a stanch 
friend of education at both the public school and higher education 
levels. His work in promoting better health, notably in bringing into 
being the North Carolina Medical and Hospital Care Commission, 
has contributed immeasurably toward the expansion of health care 
facilities in the state. A continuing concern was the enrichment of 
spiritual life in better churches and a vital ministry on their part. 
Of his life and work, this native of Chatham County and longtime 
resident of Raleigh writes with characteristic charm. A rich content 
is enlivened by an easily readable style. The intimate insights and 
important events and developments in twentieth-century North Caro- 
lina history make the Poe autobiography a helpful source book as 
well as an absorbing personal story. It must be added, though, that 
we could wish for a fuller relation at some points. What Clarence 
Poe meant to the spirit and the pursuit of progress in North Carolina 
has been incalculable. We are fortunate that he has recorded his 
story in his distinctive way. 

A story of extraordinary dedication is contained in the biography 
of Dr. Gaine Cannon— Mountain Doctor—by LeGette Blythe. Seeking 
rest from his medical practice in Pickens, South Carolina, Cannon 
went to his farm at Balsam Grove. Using his leisure to catch up on 
his reading about his favorite hero, Albert Schweitzer, he saw in 
Balsam Grove the opportunity to apply the Schweitzer philosophy 
of service. From then on, he was a mountain doctor. 

Mr. Blythe has told the story with insight; the personalities of 

Review of Nonfiction 211 

doctor and patients come alive in the sure and sympathetic presenta- 
tion. His account is vital, direct, and intimate, rich in human interest, 
abounding in delightful stories of that inimitable breed, the old-time 
southern mountaineer. Copious illustrations of Gaine Cannon at work 
supplement the text. In summary, Mountain Doctor is more than the 
biography of a physician working in the southwestern North Carolina 
mountains. It is a picture of medical practice among a people whose 
remoteness has kept alive a primitive way of life. It is a contribution 
to social understanding as well as an inspiration for service. 

An entertaining book to read, Papa Wore No Halo, by Susan Her- 
ring Jefferies, was in places disappointing. Papa, David Wells Her- 
ring, Baptist preacher and missionary to China, emerges in clear 
enough relief. But some of the situations which were crucial in Papa's 
career appear in something of a haze. His controversy with the Bap- 
tist Foreign Mission Board, for example, needs a background explana- 
tion which by its absence leaves the reader with unanswered ques- 
tions about the place of the disagreement in missionary histoiy and 
its significance in missionary practice. One gets the impression that 
this book was written largely from personal memories and family 
reminiscences. Had these been supplemented by research in mission 
records and history, the biography of David Wells Herring would have 
been a much more valuable contribution to missionary history. As it 
is, Papa Wore No Halo is the portrayal of a man and his personality— 
as undoubtedly the author intended it to be— rather than a portrait 
of the missionary set in the frame of missionary history of his genera- 
tion. Mrs. Jefferies gives vivid pictures of missionary life in China 
and momentous and thrilling experiences in the family's life there. 

If the county history offering this year is small in volume, one of 
the books in the field, Colonel Arthur L. Fletcher's history of Ashe 
County, more than makes up for lack of quantity in its exceptional 
merit. Comprehensive and adequately detailed, without becoming 
monotonous or tedious, this history of Ashe County deals with various 
aspects of its life: political and governmental; military; religious; edu- 
cational; agricultural, mining, and industrial; financial; utilities; 
transportation; fraternal; medical; and legal. One chapter is devoted 
to the depression of the 1930's— all too many county histories cut off 
before that period. The most distinctive chapter concerns the folk- 
lore of the county with special emphasis on home remedies used in 
illnesses, including treatment of "cansers." For all its comprehensive 
coverage, the book is weak in its presentation of social history. One 
gets only glimpses, instead of a clear full picture, of the way Ashe 
County people have lived through the years. While the history is not 

212 The North Carolina Historical Review 

documented, it is obviously based in large measure on records, other 
source material, and secondary sources which can be regarded as de- 
pendable. Conspicuously and happily lacking is reliance on exag- 
gerated recollections of old-timers. Colonel Fletcher's account of Ashe 
County is one of the better county histories. It shows research in the 
assembling of data, judgment in evaluation of sources, and care in 
the selection of material. 

Two of the books dealing with the Negro— one with his past, the 
other with his present— merit mention. The significance of the period 
1876-1894 which Frenise A. Logan selected for his study of the Negro 
in Tarheelia is that it was the era in which the political influence of 
the Negro began to decline, the seeds of the white supremacy doc- 
trine were sown, and the pattern of racial segregation as this genera- 
tion knew it prior to the contemporary removal of barriers took form. 
The section on the Negro in politics is a fitting prologue to Helen G. 
Edmunds' The Negro and Fusion Politics in North Carolina, 1895- 
1901. Dr. Logan's and Dr. Edmunds' works provide an exceptionally 
thorough survey of the Negro in North Carolina between the end of 
Reconstruction and the triumph of white supremacy in the election 
of 1900. In addition to political history, Dr. Logan treats economic 
and social history to give a well-rounded picture of Negro Me and 
the Negro's role in the life of North Carolina. 

Harry Golden's Mr. Kennedy and the Negroes, while relating the 
current desegregation process to the late President, extends well be- 
yond the limits of the title. In addition to detailing the removal of 
legal barriers separating the races, Mr. Golden shows some of the 
obstacles in public opinion to desegregation. The content of Mr. 
Kennedy and the Negroes is not an original contribution to the his- 
tory of racial desegregation. That topic has been well covered in 
books, magazine articles, and newspaper features. In tying the sub- 
ject to President John F. Kennedy and making him something of a 
symbol for the civil rights movement, Mr. Golden found a new lead 
for a familiar story. He has selected from the mass of available data 
a representative sampling which makes his book a good study of this 
troubled era. To history Mr. Golden adds his interpretations both of 
the order of Negro society— he stresses the fact that it has been a 
matriarchy— and of the effect of desegregation on the southern white 
and Negro. In brief, Mr. Golden, essaying the role of prophet, fore- 
sees that desegregation will emancipate the southern white and re- 
quire the Negro to work the harder to achieve in the larger competi- 
tion he will face. 

One of the most valuable of the year's nonfiction offering, in giving 

Review of Nonfiction 213 

information, is The Peanut Story, by F. Roy Johnson. Its packaging 
does not attract— in fact is deceptive of the true worth of the book, 
which is a comprehensive, documented history of peanut produc- 
tion. It constitutes a worthwhile reference work on this staple of 
northeastern North Carolina's agricultural economy. 

Of the history titles on the list, the most significant in its contribu- 
tion to the preservation of the nation's history is Glenn Tucker's Dawn 
Like Thunder. Detailing the record of the Barbary Wars, it corrects 
the popular, textbook-fostered misconceptions of what actually took 
place, particularly in the settlement, in the conflict between the 
United States and the Barbary States of North Africa. Exhaustive re- 
search made possible definitive treatment of a neglected episode in 
American history. It includes the account of one of the most memor- 
able, but for most people forgotten, exploits in American military 
annals, the thousand-mile march across North Africa led by William 
Eaton and Lieutenant Presley Neville O'Bannon of the Marines, of 
which the high point was the capture of Derna— and its fruitlessness. 
Mr. Tucker is quite effective in snowing that the peace which brought 
the fighting to an end was less a confirmation of the victory American 
exploits gained than a compromise with the Bashaw of Tripoli. The 
significance of the Barbary Wars, as Tucker sees it, is not so much a 
crushing of the Barbary States and stopping their piratical depreda- 
tions and the payment of tribute to them, which continued another 
decade, as in giving the Navy "a glorious beginning" and providing 
Navy officers with preparatory training for the War of 1812. 

The Cape Hatteras Seashore is distinguished for superb photog- 
raphy by Bruce Roberts and vividly descriptive text by David Stick. 

As The Peanut Story merits a more pleasing typographical vehicle, 
so does Judge Allen H. Gwyn's Work-Earn and Save. The merit of the 
book is its significance for programs of prisoner rehabilitation. More 
than a vindication of one judge's experiment in helping humans who 
have taken the wrong track to find a better way, it is a source book 
to justify the extension of this experiment and a constructive prisoner 
rehabilitation program. 

The one volume of literary criticism concerns one of the most pro- 
ductive and original eras in the history of English literature, the 
Elizabethan, and what was probably its most vital form, the drama. A 
general analysis of early Elizabethan drama gives Ernest William Tal- 
bert a springboard to the more specialized waters of the era's fore- 
most figure, Shakespeare, the four hundredth anniversary of whose 
birth has been observed this year. Professor Talbert limits his study 
to the earlier plays of the master, comedies and historical dramas. 

214 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Designed essentially for the scholar, Elizabethan Drama and Shake- 
speare's Early Plays makes a definitive contribution to the study of 
English drama. 

Three books in the list should be read for sheer enjoyment. They 
contain information, but their entertainment value transcends their 
other values. Chancellor Robert B. House's collection of reminiscences 
of university life and, in larger measure, of university personalities 
in his student days a half -century ago, is, to be sure, a valuable con- 
tribution to the history of The University of North Carolina. But its 
nostalgic charm has appeal for every old graduate, not only of Chapel 
Hill, but also of any other institution of distinction and tradition. Its 
greatest weakness is Chancellor House's compulsive tendency to apo- 
theosis. My own knowledge of other garden spots— there are a few, 
you know— assures me that there were serpents in the Edens of even 
our idealized boyhoods, as there were in the first Eden. And I am 
sure that there were serpents in the Chapel Hill paradise of 1912- 
1916, although Chancellor House has scrupulously omitted mention 
of all save the hazing tragedy of 1912. But if apotheosis is a weak- 
ness, a tower of strength in The Light That Shines is the reminder of 
great teaching and its power to enlighten and enliven the lives of 
students through the subsequent years. 

Thad Stem, Jr.'s, Light and Rest is a collection of brief essays, large- 
ly nostalgic, with the avowed purpose of entertaining through calling 
to mind the pleasant life of a day now gone, but within the memory 
of those who have reached the middle years. As they entertain, they 
preserve episodes in social history which the future historian of the 
Tarheel scene cannot afford to overlook. For us who are Mr. Stem's 
contemporaries and share similar memories, though, the merit of his 
work is its capacity to divert and entertain. The style possesses a lyric 
quality— not unexpected in a man who is also a poet— and there is a 
specificity which creates the atmosphere of reality. Though many of 
the essays take the reader back in memory, the over-all effect is appre- 
ciation of human kind and human worth— an ever contemporary 

These last three works discussed in this review constitute its dessert 
course. If Chancellor House's The Light That Shines is the sweet 
potato pudding (grated, of course) and Thad Stem's Light and Rest 
the homemade ice cream (eaten from the dasher), Ann Strudwick 
Nash's Ladies in the Making is the plum pudding with hard sauce. 
This is the story of the Nash-Kollock School in Hillsboro— the school 
for girls conducted by Sally and Maria Nash (daughters of Chief 
Justice Frederick Nash and granddaughters of Governor Abner 

Review of Nonfiction 215 

Nash) and their cousin, Sarah Kollock. It is a fine water color— if I 
may change the metaphor used a sentence or two ago— of a genteel 
school for genteel young ladies of genteel families. The aim of the 
school is succinctly expressed in the title of the book; and the school 
was symbolic of an educational ideal which held that the purpose 
of schooling is to produce a lady or a gentleman and that book learn- 
ing is secondary and supplementary to that objective. It was, in its 
simplified way and under prevailing circumstances, an application 
of John Witherspoon's profound and valid dictum, "Truth is in order 
to goodness." 

As social history, Ladies in the Making is fascinating. The merit of 
its style is love for the subject. It portrays with tender grace a day 
that is dead. And though the day is dead, it possessed qualities which 
would make life in the alive today more pleasant and more enjoyable. 
The blend of formality and courtesy— and now I mix my metaphors 
with abandon and without apology— oils the wheels of human contact 
and smooths the rough roads of the day's demands in family living, 
work, and civic activity. 

More than any other book in this nonfiction offering, Ladies in the 
Making is representative of the new interest in preserving North Caro- 
lina history and of the reminders that Tarheelia too has a fine tradi- 
tion and heritage of gracious living and high thinking. 


By Norman C. Larson* 

It is extremely difficult to stand before a group of people with 
whom I have become quite familiar over the past several years, and 
realize that, in all probability, this will be my final performance of 
this nature. It is also very difficult to realize that it actually was four 
years ago that I stood in this same spot and outlined the proposed 
activities of the then-forthcoming centennial. 

But time has passed, and this is my final appearance, and these two 
facts cannot be altered. And the centennial anniversary of the War 
Between the States has virtually ended. 

This morning, however, I am not here to bemoan the addition of a 
few more gray hairs or lament over extra girth where it is most appar- 
ent. Neither shall I regret that with the end of the centennial comes 
also the end of my employment, nor do I plan to memorialize or eulo- 
gize the activities of the commission I represent. 

I could say, and honestly so, that our commission is the finest of 
the 44 similar groups throughout the nation, but I won't. I will not 
say that our staff, in spite of its many changes, has remained one of 
the most loyal and productive in state government; without these 
dedicated people the progress we have made would not have been 
possible. I will not mention the co-operation extended to us by the 
State Department of Archives and History, from the director on down, 
which has been one of our mainstays during the past four years and 
say that, without it, we would long since have collapsed. 

No, I'll not say these things because they don't need to be said. You 
know them; I know them; so also does the centennial-minded nation. 

Rather than eulogize or memorialize them, I should like to utilize 
the brief time allotted me to do exactly as is suggested in your pro- 
gram—give you a report of centennial activity in and about North 
Carolina, and perhaps, at the same time, evaluate what it has all 
meant to this state and to the country. 

* Mr. Larson, Executive Secretary of The North Carolina Confederate Centennial 
Commission, presented this speech at the morning session of The North Carolina 
Literary and Historical Association in Raleigh on December 4, 1964. 

Confederate Centennial Report 217 

As you are aware, the past four years have seen North Carolina and, 
indeed, the entire nation gripped in what can only be called "the 
throes of a minor miracle." This "minor miracle," of course, is the 
Civil War Centennial, that greatest of all commemorative events 
which has been with us since February, 1961. This singularly-Ameri- 
can phenomenon has made itself felt from Maine to Florida, and from 
New York to California. It has caused some historians to shudder; 
others, to jump with glee. It has caused archivists to cringe ( especially 
some I know), newspaper editors to rant, and members of reactivated 
Confederate and Union regiments and ladies of the United Daughters 
of the Confederacy to ascend to a special "Seventh Heaven." 

In Mississippi one could find 10,000 Confederate colonels, com- 
plete with sash and saber, sideburns and sidearms. In Pennsylvania, 
a real-live, dyed-in-the-wool J. E. B. Stuart has thrilled children of 
all ages by posturing himself atop his strutting steed. In a New Jersey 
schoolroom, a "Blue and Gray" history section daily has fought the 
war. And in Columbus, Ohio, a Polynesian restaurant has flown a 
Confederate flag. 

We have refought the battles of Philippi, Manassas, Front Royal, 
Winchester, Antietam, Gettysburg, and many others— fought all, for- 
tunately, with a minimum of casualties. 

We have staged parades, written books, held balls, and arranged 
cake sales and special displays. We have microfilmed old records and 
compiled rosters. 

In North Carolina we have salvaged blockade-runners, raised sunk- 
en ships, dedicated monuments, staged pageants, and even commemo- 
rated the capture of a single piece of artillery ( a twelve-pound Whit- 
worth cannon). 

And now we should pause and ask ourselves, "Has it all been worth 
it?" To me, the answer is quite obvious: Yes! For out of the hullaba- 
loo and pageantry, the serious research and writing, there has come 
and there will come a better understanding of this most crucial period 
in the history of our nation. 

It is true that not all of us will have garnered a more intensified 
knowledge of the Battle of Antietam because we have seen it re- 
enacted; we will not remember the abortive peace attempt of Febru- 
ary, 1861, because a commemorative program was held; but at least 
we will be aware of the existence of these events. Our publications 
have reached thousands of school children and will reach more. And 
remember, this figure is increased many times when we consider that 
there are some 44 additional centennial commissions in the country 
that also distribute publications. These books and pamphlets have 

218 The North Carolina Historical Review 

also made the job of teaching just a little bit easier by proving to be 
the supplemental materials so much needed in our classrooms. 

Many of the commissions have published serious, good histories of 
their home states in the war— publications which otherwise might not 
have been produced. Commissions, such as those in New York and 
Ohio, have published series of booklets on various subjects, all of 
which have found a definite place in the over-all story of the period. 
Other state commissions have undertaken intensive research projects, 
which, in years to come, will aid the scholar and historian. 

Each of the 45 Civil War centennial commissions in the United 
States has conducted its own program as it has seen fit. No specific 
master plan was developed and no specific direction given, so the 
centennial has evolved as a varied and all-inclusive event. To give 
you some idea of this variety, I should like briefly to outline our pro- 
gram of the past four years; for it includes most of the techniques 
utilized by other states, and it is indicative of centennial activities 
throughout the country. 

The North Carolina Confederate Centennial Commission has been 
one of the largest and most productive of the nation's commemorative 
groups. Our membership has consisted of 25 appointed and three ex 
officio members. While the commission is political in origin, we have 
never become political in purpose, and we have managed to keep our 
approach at the historical level, where it belongs. 

Our staff has been one of the best, and consists at the present time 
of two professional historians, an editorial assistant, a public infor- 
mation officer, two stenographers, and an executive secretary. Our 
budget, which has been utilized mainly for staff maintenance and 
publications, has remained constant at approximately $60,000 a year 
and is surpassed only by Virginia's. 

We began our operation in April, 1960, in a somewhat dingy corner 
of the State Archives and History Department with a staff consisting 
of a jack-of-all-trades assistant and me. Our initial problem was to 
work out a program and draw up an estimated budget for the first 
year of the centennial. Having done this, we presented the suggested 
program and budget to the commission members at our first plenary 
meeting. With a few minor changes, the program was accepted and 
we were in business. 

One of our first thoughts was that our plans were too ambitious to 
be carried out by staff alone. We therefore asked Governor Luther H. 
Hodges to request that each county's board of commissioners appoint 
a group to work with us in planning and conducting the centennial 
program at a local level. Governor Hodges did this and commissioners 

Confederate Centennial Report 219 

in 77 of North Carolina's 100 counties complied with his request. 
Organizational and instructional materials were then mailed to com- 
mittee members and work was commenced. 

The commission itself was organized into committees, with each 
member assuming a committee role best suited to his or her abilities. 
In addition to commission members, selected outsiders (specialists 
in their fields) were invited to participate with us. Eleven committees 
were formed, covering such areas as drama; audio-visual aid; school 
education; publications; graves and markers; special events; legisla- 
tion; documents, manuscripts, and museum items; re-enactments; the 
Confederate Museum; and the Confederate Festival. In the begin- 
ning each committee met as needed to work out a program for the 
staff to follow. The result of this work may be seen in our accomplish- 
ments to date. 

In 1961 and 1962 we were extremely active in the field of drama. 
A group of outstanding North Carolina writers was prevailed upon 
to combine its talents and, under the direction of playwright Paul 
Green, to produce three one-act plays for high school, college, and 
community theater use. Betty Smith (of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn 
fame), Manly Wade Wellman, and George Brenholtz were our 

The potential development of a new and up-to-date Confederate 
Museum in Richmond, long a personal dream of mine, was the result 
of initial planning by our Confederate Museum Committee. At our 
suggestion, the Confederate States Centennial Conference adopted 
this as a major project. Another request from this group, to the city 
of Richmond, resulted in the donation of a building and badly-needed 
land to the Confederate Literary and Memorial Society, custodians 
of the old White House of the Confederacy which is now the Confed- 
erate Museum. We hope that the White House will eventually be 
restored to its 1861-1865 appearance and that the additional buildings 
and land will be better utilized to tell the story of the Confederacy. 

Of our many activities, our most productive work, perhaps, has 
been in the field of publications. We have published the aforemen- 
tioned one-act plays; promotional literature; pamphlets on the battles 
of Fort Macon, New Bern, and Gettysburg; the booklet, A Guide to 
Military Organizations and Installations, North Carolina, 1861-1865; 
Front Rank, a book telling the story of North Carolina in the Civil 
War, by Glenn Tucker; and A Johnny Reb Band from Salem, the 
Twenty-sixth Regimental Band history, by Harry H. Hall. We have 
also reprinted a 1929 offering, North Carolina Women of the Con- 
federacy. We are currently preparing for publication an index to 


220 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Civil War materials in the State Department of Archives and History 
and a history of the Sixth North Carolina Regiment. Consideration is 
being given at the present time to the publication of a history of Fort 
Fisher and the two major battles associated with it. 

The commission's most monumental effort to date is the compiling 
and editing of a new roster of North Carolina troops, 1861-1865. The 
first volume of this estimated twenty- to thirty-volume work is now 
ready for the printer and is scheduled to be published in the spring 
of 1965. A second volume should appear shortly thereafter. Publica- 
tion of subsequent volumes will cover an estimated span of three or 
four years and will be carried out by the State Department of Archives 
and History. This project, the largest of its kind undertaken by a 
state commission, has been recognized nationally as the most out- 
standing contribution of any centennial commission. Much inspira- 
tion for this effort has come from State Archivist H. G. Jones; without 
his constant assistance, the project would not have been possible. 

Early in the centennial, we undertook the marking of the North 
Carolina Civil War sites not already adequately indicated as such, and 
the ones not scheduled for treatment as state historic sites or parks. 
New Bern, Roanoke Island, and Averasboro Battlefield are a few of 
these. A new-type highway marker was developed by the commission 
and has been adopted by the State Department of Archives and 
History for use in its marker program. 

One of the most successful phases of our program has been that of 
audio- visual education. With the co-operation of key personnel from 
leading radio and television stations in the state, we have seen the 
production of two television dramas, five half-hour documentaries, 
one hour-long musical program, and numerous interview and short 
feature programs. These shows were produced at little or no cost to 
the commission. All of North Carolina's major centennial events have 
received radio and television coverage, and we feel that through the 
broadcasting media we have succeeded in reaching a maximum num- 
ber of Tarheels with the centennial message. 

A by-product of our audio-visual committee work is in the infant 
stage and has yet to be given public exposure. This is a radio and 
television broadcasters' historical association, which we hope will 
evolve from this committee and eventually lead to a new technique 
in the preservation of North Carolina's records. 

Re-enactments have also been handled by this commission; and, 
while approached with trepidation by many, they have all been of a 
satisfactory nature. At our suggestion, the Alamance County Confed- 
erate Centennial Committee undertook the organization, or rather, 

Confederate Centennial Report 221 

reactivation, of one of the state's most outstanding fighting units— 
the Sixth North Carolina Regiment. The regiment has a current 
strength of approximately 150 men and can produce a minimum of 
50 participants for any program or re-enactment. Commanded by 
Burlington industrialist and commission member, W. Cliff Elder, the 
regiment has participated in all major re-enactments to date and is 
preparing for the battle re-enactment at Averasboro in March, 1965. 

In the field of in-school education we have had perhaps the least 
amount of success. While we have provided many illustrated lectures 
for individual classes and placed literature in the hands of the pupils 
themselves, we did not, until 1963, succeed in making what might 
be termed a mass "pitch" to the students or teachers. In that year, 
however, we placed our publication Front Rank in virtually all school 
libraries, where it is now used as a supplementary teaching device for 
seventh- and eighth-grade classes. 

Commemorative programs have been many and varied. These have 
ranged from a simple ceremony in February, 1961, marking the one 
hundredth aniversary of the last time that the "Stars and Stripes" was 
flown in Wilmington (incidentally, this brought about the return of 
that very same flag to Wilmington), to the gala Confederate Festival 
in May, 1961, which served as a kickoff for our program. Coming in 
between and since these events have been literally hundreds of pro- 
grams, not only on a state-wide scale, but also at the local level; most 
of these have been conducted by the county committees. Outstanding 
among these programs have been the anniversary programs noting 
the battles of Roanoke Island, New Bern, and Fort Macon; Colonel 
William Lamb Day, held in July, 1962, at Fort Fisher; and a Civil 
War musicale held in Winston-Salem. We have also participated in 
the commemorations of events at the national level, such as those at 
Manassas, Sharpsburg, Gettysburg, Kennesaw Mountain, and many 

Many of our committees have collected documents and manuscripts 
of the Civil War period and have insured their preservation either 
by photostating or depositing them in state or local archives. The best 
example of such may be seen in the work of our Forsyth County com- 
mittee, which has prevailed upon the Wake Forest College Library to 
establish a Civil War documents section. This committee has also 
been instrumental in collecting many historically important records 
and manuscripts which are kept by the college. 

We could go on mentioning other aspects of our program, but since 
time is limited I must now bring this talk to a close. In doing so, how- 
ever, I should like to mention one or two of our "pet" projects— pro- 

222 The North Carolina Historical Review 

jects which have really not been completed, but which have been our 
biggest "attention-getters" to date. These are the salvage operations 
conducted off the coast of North Carolina and the resurrection and 
restoration of the Confederate gunboat "Neuse." 

In March, 1962, a fierce coastal storm laid waste much of eastern 
North Carolina. In the Fort Fisher area, however, it worked to our 
advantage; or, more specifically, to the advantage of the State De- 
partment of Archives and History. Rather than causing great destruc- 
tion, the storm revealed the remains of a sunken British steamer, 
"Modern Greece." United States Naval divers, while on a sort of 
"busman's holiday," discovered the wreck. They reported this dis- 
covery to officials of the department and this commission, who were 
soon off on a crash salvage program which lasted approximately a 
year and a half. 

Under our direction, naval and civilian divers have recovered 
thousands of artifacts including rifles, bayonets, medical equipment, 
Bowie knives, and three large cannons (each weighing in excess of 
6,000 pounds). The commission has been instrumental in procuring 
funds to conduct these operations and has assisted considerably in the 
establishment of an Archives and History preservation laboratory to 
process materials recovered from the sea. Incidentally, the work being 
done at the Fort Fisher laboratory is receiving not only state and 
national attention, but also world-wide recognition. We are quite 
proud of this aspect of the program and of all the people who have 
worked with us to bring it about. 

The second of our "pet" projects has been the resurrection of the 
Confederate gunboat "Neuse" from the Neuse River, near Kinston, 
Under the direction of the Lenoir County Confederate Centennial 
Committee, the project has been underway for approximately three 
years and at last seems on the way to completion. Some $25,000 has 
been raised at the local level and put into salvage work. The gunboat 
is now out of the water and permanently situated at the Governor 
Richard Caswell Memorial just a few miles upstream from the spot 
where it had lain for 100 years. Plans now are to construct housing 
for the "Neuse" and a nearby museum to display artifacts recovered 
from it. Two fund-raising projects are currently being carried on by 
the Lenoir County committee along with this commission: the selling 
of commemorative medals of silver, silver oxidize, and bronze, which 
depict the "Neuse" on one side and the original Confederate Naval 
Seal on the other; and the issuing of commissions in the Confederate 
Navy to those who wish to contribute. 

Confederate Centennial Report 223 

In conclusion, I am reminded of an article which appeared in some 
scholarly publication at the onset of the centennial and was entitled 
"The Civil War Centennial— Cerebration or Celebration?" My con- 
tention has long been that both of these are needed in a program of 
this magnitude, and I strongly feel that we have succeeded in pro- 
viding some degree of contentment for the scholar and the layman. 
If this be true, then I feel that the purpose of The North Carolina 
Confederate Centennial Commission has been fulfilled. 


By William S. Powell* 

Bibliography and Libraries 

* Jones, Houston Gwynne. Union list of North Carolina newspapers, 1751- 
1900. Edited by H. G. Jones and Julius H. Avent, in co-operation with 
the Committee on the Conservation of Newspaper Resources of the 
North Carolina Library Association. Raleigh, State Department of 
Archives and History, 1963. 152p. $3.00. 
Mebane, John. Books relating to the Civil War, a priced check list, 
including regimental histories, Lincolniana and Confederate imprints. 
New York, T. Yoseloff, 1963. 144p. $10.00. 

Philosophy and Religion 

v Carr, Warren. Baptism: conscience and clue for the church. New York, 

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. 208p. $4.50. 
Childer, James Saxon. A way home, the Baptists tell their story. Atlanta, 

Tupper and Love, 1964. 235 p. $3.95. 
. Hill, Samuel Smythe. Baptists, North and South, by Samuel S. Hill, Jr., 

and Robert G. Torbet. Valley Forge, Judson Press, 1964. 143p. $2.00. 
v Pratt, Joseph Gaither. Parapsychology, an insider's view of ESP. 

Garden City, Doubleday, 1964. 300p. $3.95. 
^Wall, James William. A history of the First Presbyterian Church of 

Mocksville, North Carolina (formerly Joppa and Forks of Yadkin). 

Mocksville, [Author?], 1963. 136p. $4.50. 
VWare, Charles Crossfield. The church bell, a history of the First 

Christian Church, Wilson, N. C. Wilson, First Christian Church, 1963. 

144p. $3.00. 
^Webbe, Gale D. The night and nothing. New York, Seabury Press, 1964. 

125p. $3.00. 

Economics and Sociology 

^Appalachian Trail Conference. Guide to the Appalachian Trail in 
Tennessee and North Carolina, Cherokee, Pisgah, and Great Smokies. 
Washington, Appalachain Trail Conference, 1963. 326p. $2.75. 

1 Books dealing with North Carolina or by North Carolinians published during the 
year ending June 30, 1964. 

* Mr. Powell is Librarian of the North Carolina Collection, The University of North 
Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. 



North Carolina Bibliography 225 

v^Bird, William Ernest. The history of Western Carolina College, the 
progress of an idea. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 

1963. 294p. $7.50. 
/Boykin, James H. Foreign divorce. New York, Pageant Press, 1964. 79p. 

kBrown, Hugh Victor. E-qual-ity education in North Carolina among 

Negroes. Raleigh, Irving-Swain Press, 1964. 198p. $4.00. 
Bryson, Joseph E. Legality of loyalty oath and non-oath requirements for 

public school teachers. Boone, [Author?], 1963. 105p. $4.00. 
^Drake, William Earle. Higher education in North Carolina before 1860. 

New York, Carlton Press, 1964. 283p. $5.00. 
k-Emery, Sarah Watson. Blood on the old well. Dallas, Texas, Prospect 

House, 1963. 240p. $2.00. 
^Gilpin, Ruth. Theory and practice as a single reality, an essay in social 

work education. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1963. 

139p. $4.50. 
^Golden, Harry Lewis. Mr. Kennedy and the Negroes. Cleveland, World 

Publishing Company, 1964. 319p. $4.95. 
Gwyn, Allen H. Work, earn and save. Chapel Hill, Institutes for Civic 

Education, Extension Division, University of North Carolina, 1963. 

178p. $1.50. 
Y Harper, James C. North Carolina sheriffs' manual, a guidebook for 

sheriffs and their deputies. Chapel Hill, Institute of Government, 1964. 

344p. $4.00. 
^House, Robert Burton. The light that shines. Chapel Hill, 1912-1916. 

Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1964. 216p. $5.00. 
' "Johnson, Gerald White. Communism, an American's view. New York, 

Morrow, 1964. 160p. $3.50. 
/Larson, Arthur, editor. A warless world. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1963. 

209p. $3.95. 
'Logan, Frenise A. The Negro in North Carolina, 1876-1894. Chapel Hill, 

University of North Carolina Press, 1964. 244p. $6.00. 
^McKnight, Edgar V. A history of Chowan College, by Edgar V. McKnight 

and Oscar Creech. Murfreesboro, Chowan College, 1964. 330p. $5.00. 
v Nash, Ann Spots wood. Ladies in the making (also a few gentlemen) at 

the Select Boarding and Day School of the Misses Nash and Miss 

Kollock, 1859-1890, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Hillsboro, [Author?], 

1964. 152p. $3.00. 
'Pace, Elizabeth. County fees in North Carolina, a compilation of fees 

charged by clerks of Superior Court, registers of deeds, and sheriffs. 
Chapel Hill, Institute of Government, 1963. 37p. $1.00. 
1 Powell, William Stevens. Higher education in North Carolina. Raleigh, 
State Department of Archives and History, 1964. 67p. 25^. 
Richardson, Frank Howard. Grandparents and their families, a guide 

for three generations. New York, McKay, 1964. 116p. $3.50. 
^hamburger, Page. Tracks across the sky, the story of the pioneers of 

the U.S. air mail. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott, 1964. 179p. $4.95. 
TSmith, David Nathan. The law of confessions and scientific evidence. 
Chapel Hill, Institute of Government, 1963. 308p. $4.00. 


226 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Mapping out a valid search warrant. Chapel Hill, Institute of 

I } Government, 1963. 41p. $1.00. 
-Si- & Stroud, Virgil C. In quest of freedom. Dallas, Texas, Royal Publishing 
Company, 1963. 202p. $4.50. 
Wilson, Louis Round. The University of North Carolina under con- 
solidation, 1931-1963: history and appraisal. Chapel Hill, Consolidated 
Office, University of North Carolina, 1964. 483p. free. 


[/ Ullman, Berthold Louis. Ancient writing and its influence. New York, 
Cooper Square Publishers, 1963. 234p. $2.95. 


Rounds, Glen. Rain in the woods and other small matters. Cleveland, 
, World Publishing Company, 1964. 95p. $2.95. 

^ Stupka, Arthur. Notes on the birds of Great Smoky Mountains National 
Park. Knoxville, University of Tennessee Press, 1963. 242p. $3.00. 

Applied Science and Useful Arts 

vFeezor, Betty. Carolina recipes, meal planning, low calorie menus, 
special diet recipes, food preservation, household helps. Charlotte, 
WBTV, 1964. 331p. $4.10. 

Golden, Harry Lewis. Forgotten pioneer. Cleveland, World Publishing 
Company, 1963. 157p. $3.75. 

Huffman, Robert O. Drexel Enterprises, inc., a brief history. New York, 
Newcomen Society in North America, 1963. 24p. 

Johnson, Frank Roy. The peanut story. Murfreesboro, Johnson Publish- 
ing Company, 1964. 192p. $4.95. 

Rushing, William A. The psychiatric professions, power, conflict, and 
adaptation in a psychiatric hospital staff. Chapel Hill, University of ^ 
North Carolina Press, 1964. 267p. $6.00. 

Tull, Thomas M. Report on a uniform traffic ticket for North Carolina. 
Chapel Hill, Institute of Government, 1963. 124p. free. 

Fine Arts 

Brown, Robert J. Science circus, by Bob Brown. New York, Fleet Pub- 
lishing Corporation, 1963. Vol. 2. $5.95. 

Hilliard, Robert L. Understanding television, an introduction to broad- 
casting. New York, Hastings House, 1964. 254p. $6.95. 


Ammons, A. R. Expressions of sea level. Columbus, Ohio State University 
Press, 1963. 83p. $4.00. 

Boyce, Monica Plaxco. Poems of wisdom and wit. Dexter, Mo., Candor 
Press, 1964. 64p. $2.50. 

Cantwell, Elizabeth Ashmead. A bit of verse. Wilmington, Wilming- 
ton Printing Company, 1963. 31p. [50^?]. 





North Carolina Bibliography 227 

r Gregg, Eugene Stuart. 2 Reap silence. Charlotte, McNally and Loftin, 

1963. 56p. $3.00. 
Hanson, Howard Gordon. Ageless maze, poems. [No place], Robert 

Moore Allen, [1963]. 40p. 
^Jackson, Clyde 0. Joy of the moment and other poems and prose. Salis- 
bury, Rowan Printing Company, 1964. 93p. 
| McClure, Robert Edwin. When Christmas comes, and other poems. 
Asheville, Author, 1963. 48p. $1.00. 
Peele, Sanford L. Local habitation. Poems by Sanford L. Peele, Pat R. 

Willis, B. Tolson Willis. Greenville, East Carolina Press, 1963. 52p. 
Ricks, William F. Poems of appreciation, gathered and arranged by 
, Fannie H. Ricks. Mount Olive, Mount Olive Tribune, 1964. 12p. 
^Thacker, Lena Hammer. From the heart of Carolina, poems. New York, 
, Exposition Press, 1963. 77p. $3.00. 
^Turner, Lillian Elizabeth. The silver chord. Raleigh, [Author?], 1963. 
50p. $1.50. 
Walker, James Robert. Menus of love. New York, Carlton Press, 1963. 
130p. $2.75. 

h - in ■ 


I Free, William J. History into drama, a source book on symphonic drama, 
including the complete text of Paul Green's The lost colony. By William 
J. Free and Charles B. Lower. New York, Odyssey Press, 1963. 243p. 

Fiction 3 

^Bittle, Camilla R. A change of plea. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1963. 

t 252p. $4.75. 

' Blythe, LeGette. Man on fire, a novel of the life of St. Paul. New York, 

Funk & Wagnalls, 1964. 376p. $4.95. 
1 Bunn, Iola Finch. Woolly, the unclaimed lamb. New York, Exposition 

Press, 1964. 76p. $2.50. 
Carroll, Ruth. Runaway pony, runaway dog. By Ruth and Latrobe 

Carroll. New York, H. Z. Walck, 1963. 80p. $3.50. + f,C^ 

Caudill, Rebecca. The far-off land. New York, Viking Press, 1964. 287p. M 

^Chappell, Fred. It is time, Lord. New York, Atheneum, 1963. 183p. 

1 Cobb, William E. An inch of snow. Winston-Salem, John Fries Blair, 

1964. 307p. $4.50. 

' Downs, Robert Bingham. The bear went over the mountain, tall tales 
of American animals. New York, Macmillan, 1964. 358p. $6.95. 
Eckert, Allan W. The great auk, a novel. Boston, Little Brown, 1963. 
202p. $4.75. 

/^6hle, John Marsden. 4 The land breakers. New York, Harper & Row, 

2 Winner of the Roanoke-Chowan Award for poetry, 1964. 

3 By a North Carolinian or with the scene laid in North Carolina. 
* Winner of the Sir Walter Raleigh Award for fiction, 1964. 


228 The North Carolina Historical Review 

1964. 407p. $5.95. 
v Fletcher, Inglis. Rogue's Harbor. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1964. 
242p. $4.50. 
Hay, Jacob. The Mindleberg papers, a novel. New York, Macmillan, 1964. 
215p. $4.50. 
V Jarrell, Randall. 5 The bat-poet. New York, Macmillan, 1964. 42p. $2.75. 

The gingerbread rabbit. New York, Macmillan, 1964. 55p. 

Lassiter, Mable S. Peppermint pink and other stories for boys and girls. 
Durham, Seeman Printery, 1964. 80p. $2.25. 
'""Xatham, Edythe. The seasons of God, a novel. Garden City, Doubleday, 
1963. 379p. $4.95. 
MacNeill, Ben Dixon. Sand Roots. Winston-Salem, John Fries Blair, 

1963. 444p. $5.95. 

Morrah, Dave. Our honor the mayor. Garden City, Doubleday, 1964. 206p. 
■ Niggli, Josephine Morgan. A miracle for Mexico. Greenwich, Conn., 
New York Graphic Society Publishers, 1964. 179p. $4.95. 
Perry, Octavia J. My head's high from proudness. Winston-Salem, John 

Fries Blair, 1963. 230p. $4.50. 
Price, Reynolds. The names and faces of heroes. New York, Atheneum, 
q 1963. 178p. $4.00. 

Rehder, Jessie C. The story at work, an anthology. New York, Odyssey 
t / Press, 1964. 404p. $3.00. 

^Rounds, Glen. Whitey's new saddle. New York, Holiday House, 1963. 92p. 
Slaughter, Frank Gill. A savage place, a novel. Garden City, Doubleday, 

1964. 248p. $4.50. 

Upon this rock, a novel of Simon Peter, Prince of the Apostles. 

, New York, Coward-McCann, 1963. 352p. $5.95. 
Smith, Betty. Joy in the morning. New York, Harper & Row, 1963. 308p. 
V Speas, Jan Cox. The growing season. New York, Morrow, 1963. 255p. 
*p $3.95. 

Steele, William O. Wayah of the Real People. Williamsburg, Va., Colonial 

Williamsburg, 1964. 128p. $3.50. 
Taylor, Peter Hillsman. Miss Lenora when last seen, and fifteen other 

stories. New York, I. Obolensky, 1963. 398p. $4.95. 
Wellman, Manly Wade. The river pirates. New York, I. Washburn, 

1963. 143p. $3.50. 
. Settlement on Shocco, adventures in colonial Carolina. Winston- 
Salem. John Fries Blair, 1963. 184p. $2.95. 
Who fears the devil? Sauk City, Wisconsin, Arkham House, 


1963. 213p. $4.00. 
Wiener, Marie Anna. The king's three daughters, a fairy tale. New York, 
Carlton Press, 1963. 196p. $2.50. 

6 Winner of the AAUW Award for juvenile literature, 1964. 

North Carolina Bibliography 229 

Literature, Other Than Poetry, Drama, or Fiction 

Green, Paul Eliot. Plough and furrow, some essays and papers on life 
, and the theatre. New York, S. French, 1963. 165p. $3.00. 
/ Martin, Lister Allen. Under blue skies, lingering memories of things 

seen and felt across the years. Lexington, [Author?], 1963. 103p. 
^Stem, Thad. Light and rest. Charlotte, McNally and Loftin, 1964. 191p. 
*/ $4.00. 

^Talbert, Ernest William. Elizabethan drama and Shakespeare's early 
plays, an essay in historical criticism. Chapel Hill, University of North 
Carolina Press, 1963. 410p. $8.00. 

History and Travel 

1/bodman, Herbert Luther. Political factions in Aleppo, 1760-1826. Chapel 
Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1963. 160p. $2.50. 

^Cooper, Arthur W. Smith Island and the Cape Fear Peninsula: a com- 
prehensive report on an outstanding natural area, by Arthur W. Cooper 
and Sheaf e Satterthwaite. Raleigh, Wildlife Preserves (in co-operation 

/ with the North Carolina Academy of Science), 1964. 80p. $2.00. 
Craven, Avery Odelle. An historian and the Civil War. Chicago, Univer- 
sity of Chicago Press, 1964. 233p. $6.95. 
I CRONON, Edmund David, editor. The cabinet diaries of Josephus Daniels, 

^1913-1921. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1963. 648p. $8.50. 

Current, Richard Nelson. Lincoln and the first shot. Philadelphia, Lip- 
pincott, 1963. 223p. $3.95. 

^Davis, Burke. Appomattox, closing struggle of the Civil War. New York, 
Harper & Row, 1963. 167p. $2.95. 
Davis, David Earl. History of Tyrrell County. Norfolk, J. Christopher 
, Printing, 1963. 98p. $4.00. 

I Eaton, William Clement, editor/The leaven of democracy, the growth 
of the democratic spirit in the time of Jackson. New York, G. Braziller, 
1963. 490p. $8.50. 
—. The mind of the Old South. Baton Rouge, Louisiana State Uni- 
versity Press, 1964. 271p. $6.00. 

r Fletcher, Arthur L. Ashe County, a history. Jefferson, Ashe County Re- 
search Association, Inc., 1963. 403p. $5.00. 

" Hulton, Paul. The American drawings of John White, 1577-1590, with 
drawings of European and Oriental subjects, by Paul Hulton and David 
Beers Quinn. London, Trustees of the British Museum; Chapel Hill, 
University of North Carolina Press, 1964. 2 vols. $225.00. 

u Johnson, Gerald White. Hod-carrier: notes of a laborer on an un- 
finished cathedral. New York, Morrow, 1964. 211p. $3.95. 

v 'Lemmon, Sarah McCulloh. North Carolina's role in World War II. 
Raleigh, State Department of Archives and History, 1964. 68p. 25^. 

V McPherson, Holt. European report, 1963; also a report by Mrs. Holt 
McPherson, President of Burbank Flower Club, on the International 
Horticulture Exhibition, Hamburg, 1963. High Point, Phoenician Press, 
1963. 98p. 


230 The North Carolina Historical Review 

v Merrens, Harry Roy. Colonial North Carolina in the eighteenth century, 
a study in historical geography. Chapel Hill, University of North Caro- 
lina Press, 1964. 293p. $7.50. 

' Muse, Benjamin. Tarheel Tommy Atkins. New York, Vantage Press, 

1963. 140p. $2.50. 

^ Pugh, Jesse Forbes. The hotel in the Great Dismal Swamp, and con- 
temporary events thereabouts, by Jesse F. Pugh and Frank T. Wil- 
liams. Old Trap, J. F. Pugh, 1964. 174p. $4.45. 
1 Rankin, Hugh Franklin. The American Revolution. New York, Put- 
nam, 1964. 382p. $5.95. 
Reeves, Roie Campbell. Lords over lightly, the Lords Proprietors of 

North Carolina. Raleigh, [Author?], 1963. 32p. $1.50. 
Reynolds, Thurlow Weed. Born of the mountains. [No place, author?], 

1964. 179p. 

. High lands. [No place, author?], 1964. 178p. $3.50. 

Sellers, Charles Grier. A synopsis of American history, by Charles 

Sellers and Henry May. Chicago, Rand McNally, 1963. 434p. $4.00. 
Stick, David. The Cape Hatteras seashore. (Photography by Bruce 

Roberts.) Charlotte, McNally and Loftin, 1964. 58p. $3.95. 
Tucker, Glenn. 6 Dawn like thunder, the Barbary wars and the birth of 

the U.S. Navy. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1963. 487p. $6.50. 
V Vance, Zebulon Baird. The papers of Zebulon B. Vance, edited by Frontis 

W. Johnston. Raleigh, State Department of Archives and History, 1963. 

Vol. I. $5.00. 



Smallwood, Marilu Burch. Some colonial and Revolutionary families of 
North Carolina. Washington, [Author], 1964. Vol. I. $12.00. 

Autobiography and Biography 

Blackmore, James H. The Cullom lantern, a biography of W. R. Cullom 

of Wake Forest. Raleigh, Edwards & Broughton, 1963. 324p. $6.25. 
Blythe, LeGette. Mountain doctor. New York, Morrow, 1964. 221p. 
* Brown, O. Lester. Blanford Barnard Dougherty, a man to match his 
/ mountains. [Charlotte, Author, 1963]. 212p. $4.95. 
\ Camp, Cordelia. David Lowry Swain, governor and university president. 

Asheville, Stephens Press, 1963. 64p. $2.50. 
'Fisher, Vardis. Thomas Wolfe as I knew him, and other essays. Denver, 
, A. Swallow, 1963. 166p. $4.00. 
Hoyt, Edwin Palmer. Spectacular rogue : Gaston B. Means. Indianapolis, 

Bobbs-Merrill, 1963. 352p. $5.95. 
Jefferies, Susan Herring, Papa wore no halo. Winston-Salem, John 

Fries Blair, 1963. 457p. $4.95. 
Mitchell, Memory Farmer. North Carolina's signers, brief sketches 
of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Con- 


a Winner of the Mayflower Award, 1964. 


North Carolina Bibliography 231 

stitution. Raleigh, State Department of Archives and History, 1964. 61p. 

Patrick, Rembert Wallace. Aristocrat in uniform, General Duncan L. 

Clinch. Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1963. 226p. $5.50. 
f Poe, Clarence Hamilton. My first 80 years. Chapel Hill, University of 

North Carolina Press, 1963. 267p. $4.75. 
v West, Robert Frederick. God's gambler. Englewood Cliffs, Printice- 

Hall, 1964. 235p. $3.95. 

New Editions and Reprints 

^Campbell, Carlos Clinton. Great Smoky Mountains wildflowers. Knox- 

ville, University of Tennessee Press, 1964. 88p. $3.00. 
v Craven, Avery Odelle. Edmund Ruffin, Southerner, a study in secession. 

Hamden, Conn., Archon Books, 1964. 283p. $8.00. 
VDeMond, Robert Orley. The loyalists in North Carolina during the 
Revolution. Hamden, Conn., Archon Books, 1964. 286p. $7.50. 
Gay, James. A collection of various pieces of poetry, chiefly patriotic. With 
an introduction by Richard Walser. Charlotte, McNally & Loftin, 1964. 
42p. $3.00. 
Golden, Harry Lewis. Mr. Kennedy and the Negroes. Greenwich, Conn., 
. Fawcett Publications, 1964. 240p. 60^. 
r Gunn, Robert Louis. Driver's license law. Chapel Hill, Institute of Gov- 
ernment, 1963. 118p. $2.00. 
Helper, Hinton Rowan. The impending crisis of the South : how to meet 
it. New York, Collier Books, 1963. 346p. $1.50. 
^Lewis, Henry Wilkins. Primary and general election law and procedure, 
a guidebook for county and precinct election officials in North Carolina. 
Chapel Hill, Institute of Government, 1964. 146p. $2.00. 
' McKenna, Richard Milton. The Sand Pebbles, a novel. Greenwich, 
Conn., Fawcett Publications, 1964. 528p. 95^. 
Morgan, Ernest, editor. A manual of simple burial. Burnsville, Celo Press, *gfeq 

Arthur Morgan School, 1964. 64p. $1.00. "^Tu^ 

Oates, Wayne Edward. The Christian pastor. Philadelphia, Westminster 
, Press, 1964. 258p. $5.00. 
\/Raynor, George. Sketches of old Rowan. Salisbury, [Author?], 1963. un- 
paged. $2.50. 
Slaughter, Frank Gill. David, warrior and king, a Biblical biography. 
New York, Pocket Books, 1963. 389p. 50^. 

Devil's harvest, a novel. New York, Pocket Books, 1964. 188p. 


.. Sangaree. New York, Popular Library, 1964. 318p. 60^. 

Smith, Betty. Joy in the morning. New York, Bantam Books, 1964. 250p. 



1 Southern Savory. By Bernice Kelly Harris. (Chapel Hill: The University 
of North Carolina Press. 1964. Pp. 256. $5.00.) 

The countless readers who have enjoyed the homely flavor of 
Purslane, Portulaca, Janey Jeems, Wild Cherry Tree Road, and other 
writings of Bernice Kelly Harris will find especial delight in South- 
ern Savory, a series of impressions and reminiscences. The tar is as 
thick on the heels of the writer whose fame has spread beyond the 
bounds of the state and nation as it was when she was a little girl 
in Wake County in the early years of the century. 

The little country girl whose experiences and emotions are recorded 
in Part One of the book was destined to be a writer. For her, Rocky 
Branch tumbling over rocks became Niagara Falls; the mud puddle 
in the hog lot was transformed into the river which Christiana had 
to cross over into the New Jerusalem; and a sapling served as a steed 
which she rode to Astolat. Even without a steed that shining city of 
romance could be reached, for she writes: "I rode to Astolat even 
when I churned and sloshed buttermilk and dreamed." She became a 
part of all that she read or dreamed. Though she was oftenest the 
Lily Maid, others took their turn, among them Scott's Rebecca, the 
Biblical Ruth, and Queen Victoria. 

The enchantment of Astolat did not blind the little girl to the 
absorbing interests to be found in Poole's Siding. There was Grandpa 
Kelly, whose Republican bias was a source of embarrassment to his 
kin; Grandpa Poole, who "talked to the Lord as though He were on 
the bench by him"; Aunt Martha, who "moved in cool sweet dignity," 
and who "praised everything, including the Psalms and cornbread"; 
and Cousin Will, who "made a career of visiting." One of the neigh- 
bors was a figure of comedy and pathos— Mr. Claude, a scholarly min- 
ister who did not abandon his necktie, his standup white collar, and 
his derby hat even when he was forced into farming because "he had 
run out of churches." The Latin with which he addressed his livestock 
did not keep them out of other people's fields nor discourage the 
grass from growing in his own. 

These and many more observations the child saw with clear, keen 
eyes and the mature woman remembered and re-created with sym- 
pathetic candor in Southern Savory. 

Book Reviews 233 

Part Two introduces the reader to Seaboard, the small town in 
Eastern Carolina in which Mrs. Harris has lived more than forty 
years— first as teacher, then as wife, and always as writer. Here she 
became a vital part of the life of the small place. She organized some 
of her friends into a playwriting group, which was unique while it 
lasted. "Scenarios split time with Rhode Island Reds; expository de- 
vices, with salad combinations; and kings who paid the wages of sin, 
with casseroles." From these and other neighbors, as from her kith 
and kin in Poole's Siding, she drew characters and situations which 
appear in her plays and novels. 

Because she has Wordsworth's "exquisite regard for common 
things," Mrs. Harris does not find life in a small town flat, stale and 
unprofitable; nor is it tainted with the dregs of evil. Her Seaboard is 
not Main Street or Peyton Place. Rather, she sees it as did Edgar Lee 
Masters when he wrote: 

Life all around me here in the village: 
Tragedy, comedy, valor, and truth, 
Courage, constancy, heroism, failure — 
All in the loom, and oh what patterns! 

"Small towns," Mrs. Harris writes, "cannot be generalized or poured 
from one mold any more than human being can. . . . Along with its 
general faults, each has its individual virtues." Seaboard's kindness 
she characterizes as "comprehensive and warm and spontaneous . . . 
creative kindness to humanity." While surveying farming conditions 
for the Federal Writers' Project, she found, as she talked with hunger- 
bitten sharecroppers and tenant farmers, "beauty among penury and 
want and despair." 

Mary Lynch Johnson 

Meredith College 

Folk, Region, and Society: Selected Papers of Howard W. Odum. Edited 
by Guy B. Johnson, Rupert B. Vance, George L. Simpson, and Katharine 
Jocher. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. 1964. 
Introductory notes, bibliography, index. Pp. xvi, 480. $8.00.) 

Howard W. Odum was one of the brightest lights ever to adorn 
the campus of The University of North Carolina. He was highly re- 
spected throughout America as a sociologist. Through his teachings, 
writings, and inspiration, he played the leading role in establishing 

234 The North Carolina Historical Review 

sociology as a college and university discipline throughout the entire 
South. Many of his former graduate students are now department 
heads and respected teachers in many states including all southern 

He was more than a sociologist and teacher of sociology; he was a 
man of many facets— folklorist, prose poet, and breeder of pedigreed 
Jersey cattle. He gave generously of his time to students and young 
teachers and served the state, region, and nation as head or member 
of numerous committees, commissions, and other groups. He was 
president of the American Sociological Society in 1930. Honorary 
degrees, and national and state awards were bestowed upon him. 
Several leading universities invited him to be visiting professor or 

Folk, Region, and Society contains selected papers from limited 
areas of Odum's writings. The editors are four of his former graduate 
students who were very close to him and are perhaps best qualified 
to compile this volume which appears ten years after Odum's death. 

Following a brief biographical foreword, the book is divided into 
four parts, each of which has sub-sections. 

Part I. The Negro Folk: Interpretation and Portraiture, is edited by 
Guy B. Johnson, with introductory note to ten papers. 

Part II. The Region and Regionalism, is edited by Rupert B. Vance, 
with introductory note to seven papers. 

Part III. The Folk and Folk Sociology, is edited by George L. 
Simpson, with introductory note to seven papers. 

Part IV. Sociology in the Service of Society, is edited by Katharine 
Jocher, with introductory note to 12 selected papers. 

The book contains a Bibliography of Odum's writings divided into 
books, monographs; articles, brochures, chapters, pamphlets; publi- 
cations which he edited such as Social Forces, which he also founded. 
Some of his earlier works are lost and thus not listed. The chronologi- 
cal arrangement has been followed in order to show the development 
in Odum's thinking. 

This book is a labor of love by four outstanding students and long- 
time close associates of his. He probably would have selected them 
to edit this nondefinitive volume which deals only with his writings 
as a sociologist. 

S. H. Hobbs, Jr. 

The University of North Carolina 
at Chapel Hill 

Book Reviews 235 

I North Carolina Lands : Ownership, Use and Management of Forest and 
Related Lands. By Kenneth B. Pomeroy and James G. Yoho (Washing- 
ton, D.C.: The American Forestry Association. 1964. Illustrations, 
notes, index. Pp. xx, 372. $6.00.) 

Since the days of Joseph Austin Holmes and Joseph Hyde Pratt at the 
turn of this century, the interest of North Carolinians in conservation 
has been sustained by the increasing importance of timber to the 
state's economy. The most extensive study of conservation in North 
Carolina to date is the work of two foresters, James Yoho of Duke 
University and Kenneth B. Pomeroy of the American Forestry Asso- 

Unlike other states in which similar studies have been made, pri- 
vate land ownership predominates in North Carolina. Following a 
lengthy historical discussion of land laws in North Carolina, the 
authors conclude that maintenance of private landholdings has been 
the "unswerving policy" of the state. By 1908 "almost every acre had 
been patented to private applicants." While federal, state, and local 
government agencies have reacquired considerable North Carolina 
lands over the years, most holdings are still private. 

The chief concern of the authors involves what they call the "for- 
estry problem" in North Carolina. This problem stems from the un- 
usually high percentage of commercial forests held by small land- 
holders. In an exhaustive analysis of these holdings, perhaps the most 
impressive part of the study, the authors explain how more conser- 
vation practices will be needed if future supplies of timber are to be 
kept abreast of the state's needs. "Although the quantity, if not the 
quality, of standing timber seems adequate for current demands," 
they warn, "there is no assurance that this balance will continue in- 

Accompanying this analysis is a body of specific recommendations 
that will be helpful to many of the state's enterprises. For example, 
the state's furniture industries are advised to increase their own land- 
holdings and to launch a vigorous campaign "designed to make land- 
owners more conscious of the value of hardwoods." 

The chief weakness of the study is in its organization. Unrelated 
topics are treated together without explanation. The second chapter 
on evolution of land ownership is essentially a catalog of undigested 
facts. A more complete indexing of such information would be helpful. 

In spite of these shortcomings, the authors have made a useful 
study of an important area of North Carolina's economy. It will be 

236 The North Carolina Historical Review 

of interest to the state's foresters in particular and to all students of 
the history of conservation and landholding in North Carolina. 

David N. Thomas 

East Carolina College 

Essays in American History. East Carolina College Publications in His- 
tory. Volume I. (Greenville: Department of History, East Carolina 
College. 1964. Pp. vi, 182. $1.50.) 

Essays in American History contains six articles, all by faculty mem- 
bers of the Department of History at East Carolina College (although 
graduate students are eligible to contribute to the series) and all 
clearly good enough to appear in the historical journals for which 
their subjects are appropriate. The titles of the articles, which are as 
follows, provide a brief summary of the volume's contents: Alvin A. 
Fahrner, "Commodore James Barron, United States Navy (1769- 
1851), Scapegoat of the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair"; Charles L. 
Price, "The Railroad Schemes of George W. Swepson"; Lala Carr 
Steelman, "Georgia's Reaction to Reconstruction: The Constitutional 
Convention of 1877"; Joseph F. Steelman, "Progressivism and Agita- 
tion for Legal Reform in North Carolina, 1897-1917"; Hubert A. 
Coleman, "Establishment of a Separate Air Force Medical Service 
after World War II"; and John C. Ellen, Jr., "Piedmont and Mountain 
Political Newspapers of North Carolina, 1850-1859: A Compedium." 

The major significance of this publication derives from the nature 
of the series of which it is the initial volume rather than from the 
nature of the individual articles. Essays in American History, as 
Volume I of East Carolina College Publications in History, has an 
importance out of proportion to its contents, size, and price. 

A critical question confronts the historical profession. How can 
provision be made for ample media of publication, especially for 
articles, for the rapidly growing body of historians who increasingly 
wish to publish and who are increasingly pressured by their institu- 
tions to do so? The journals of historical associations are not sufficient 
to meet the need. Furthermore, establishing more associations and 
more journals is not a wholly satisfactory solution. Already many 
historians are oppressed by the solicitations from the numerous exist- 
ing associations and by the responsibilities of membership. 

A promising answer to the question is supplied by this volume. 
In inaugurating its own series in a tasteful but low-budget format, 

Book Reviews 237 

East Carolina College has demonstrated that a modestly-financed 
institution with a modestly-paid faculty can provide itself with a 
channel of publication for articles and offer a service in scholarship 
to research libraries and the few but eager specialists to whom these 
articles are important. 

The volume's title may mislead some readers. These articles are 
not "essays" in the sense that the authors attempt to be highly literary, 
interpretive, or personal. These are conventional research pieces, no 
more, no less. 

Experimentation with genuine essays in some future volume might 
enhance the series' attractiveness. Good essays, of course, are mani- 
festly more difficult to produce than good research articles, and 
ironically the associations have devised no media for the develop- 
ment of good essayists. Perhaps East Carolina can demonstrate that 
a series such as its Publications in History can enrich the body of 
historical literature by diversifying it as well as by simply enlarging it. 

In any event, it is hoped that East Carolina will continue its good 
work, and that other institutions will consider the possible advantages 
of similar publications. 

Oliver H. Orr, Jr. 

North Carolina State of The 
University of North Carolina 
at Raleigh 

Robert Carter of Nomini Hall: A Virginia Tobacco Planter of the 
Eighteenth Century. By Louis Morton. (Charlottesville: Dominion 
Books, a division of the University Press of Virginia. 1964. Illustrations, 
tables, bibliography, index. Pp. xvi, 332. $2.75.) 

This is a reissue (paper cover) of Morton's well-documented study 
which was first published in 1941 and reprinted in 1945 by Colonial 
Williamsburg, Inc. Except for minor changes in the introductory ma- 
terial, the present book is identical to the 1945 edition. 

Aware of the excellent work done by Philip A. Bruce and Thomas 
J. Wertenbaker on the development of Virginia's plantation system 
after 1700, Morton adderessed himself to the "new" economic and 
social problems which arose in that colony after 1750. Accordingly, 
instead of writing a biography of Robert Carter, he undertook an 
investigation of the economic and cultural aspects of life on Carter's 
numerous plantations. Six chapters are devoted to plantation 
economy, and three to the interrelationships among plantation life, 

238 The North Carolina Historical Review 

the Carter family itself, and the actualities of culture in Virginia after 

The author called attention to Carter's use of tenants, an aspect of 
eighteenth-century plantation life largely neglected by historians. He 
also noted the unexpectedly large number of white skilled laborers 
on Carter's plantations. He pointed out that crops other than tobacco 
were extensively grown after 1770, raising questions as to the "plight 
of the planter" on the eve of Revolution. Furthermore, Carter's aban- 
donment of the Anglican Church, becoming first a deist, then a 
Baptist, led Morton to question the religious convictions of other 
Virginia planters. 

A few historians have pursued the path pointed out by Morton. It 
is to be hoped that the reissue of this provocative study is an indica- 
tion that there will soon be more. 

Robert W. Ramsey 

Hollins College 

A History of Georgia Agriculture, 1732-1860. By James C. Bonner. 
(Athens: University of Georgia Press. 1964. Notes, selected bibli- 
ography, index. Pp. viii, 242. $6.00.) 

A History of Georgia Agriculture, 1732-1860 is based on a doctoral 
dissertation. Dr. James C. Bonner, the author, has taught history at 
West Georgia College, Randolph- Macon Woman's College, and 
Emory University; he is now chairman of the Department of Social 
Studies at Woman's College of Georgia. Professor Fletcher M. Green, 
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, inspired this and 
other similar studies, made by his graduate students, notably Agricul- 
tural Developments in North Carolina, 1783-1860, by C. O. Cathey. 

Relying upon a wide variety of sources and treating his subjects in 
considerable detail, Dr. Bonner has produced a volume well worth the 
attention of those interested in the early history of agriculture in 
Georgia and the South. In fact, the colony as originally chartered by 
King George II included much of the mid-South. The interaction of 
people, both landowners and slaves, to the variation of soil, climate 
and other natural resources, and the quest for knowledge about new 
crops are described and well documented. 

Efforts to produce and export silk to England, the introduction and 
disapperance of rice as a principal crop along the Atlantic Coast, the 
expansion of upland cotton and the resulting soil exhaustion and 

Book Reviews 239 

emigration, the striving for economic self-sufficiency and southern 
nationalism, and the emergence of leaders and organizations to pro- 
mote various commodities or agriculture in general are some of the 
subjects of extended research by Dr. Bonner. The last several chapters 
trace in considerable detail the history of specific plants and animals 
of ante-bellum agriculture in Georgia. 

The year 1860 was a propitious termination date for the book. The 
beginnings of mechanization of farming, the increasing restiveness 
brought on by slavery, and the agitation for more knowledge on farm 
subjects and for a system of education for farm people are much in 
evidence in the last twenty years of the period covered by Dr. 

The book is interesting to anyone who seeks to understand the 
early history of the agrarian South. Chapters dealing with specialized 
subjects and the extensive bibliography will be useful as reference 
material for scholars. 

D. W. Colvard 

Mississippi State University 

Republican Party in Georgia: From Reconstruction Through 1900. By 
Olive Hall Shadgett. (Athens: The University of Georgia Press. 1964. 
Backnotes, appendixes, bibliography, index. Pp. ix, 210. $6.00.) 

The admitted "story of a fight which was lost almost before it 
began," this is the first full treatment of Georgia's Republican party 
during the last quarter or so of the nineteenth century. Georgia, like 
other southern states, had been very much a two-party arena in the 
ante-bellum period. But the circumstances and conditions surround- 
ing the birth of the Republican party in Georgia in 1867, as the 
radical phase of Reconstruction got underway, made "almost inevita- 
ble" the party's downfall. 

Summarizing fairly quickly the relatively familiar Reconstruction 
part of the story, Professor Shadgett, Political Science department, 
Georgia State College in Atlanta, shows how the Liberal Republican 
movement of 1872 hastened the party's decline in Georgia. When the 
national Democratic party accepted Horace Greeley, the Liberal Re- 
publican nominee for the presidency, as its own candidate, Joseph E. 
Brown, the controversial wartime governor, and other Georgia Re- 
publicans seized the opportunity to cross the bridge, as Mrs. Shadgett 
puts it, "from the foundering Republican party of Georgia to the 
Democratic majority." 

Thomas County During the Civil War. By William Warren Rogers. 
(Tallahassee : Florida State University. [Florida State University Stud- 
ies: Number 41], 1964. Illustrations, bibliography, index. Pp. xv, 112. 

Thomas County, situated in southwestern Georgia on the Florida 
border, was remote from the centers of military action and political 
decision during the Civil War, yet the people who lived there be- 

240 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Factionalism and the struggle for control of federal patronage, 
familiar matters to all students of the history of southern Republi- 
canism, played major roles in sapping the party's strength and are 
traced in subsequent chapters. Co-operation with various independ- 
ent movements gave Georgia Republicans some encouragement in 
the 1880's, but the Populist revolt of the 1890*5 gave promise of more 
far-reaching successes against the dominant Democrats. That Popu- 
list-Republican fusion never materialized in Georgia to the extent 
that it did in North Carolina appears to have been because of the 
fact that the Georgia Populists feared too close an identification with 
Republicans; and the Negro Republicans soon discovered that "the 
Populists wanted their votes but not their company." In other words, 
Tarheel Populists, at least for a while and until the Democrats 
mounted the racial barricades in 1898 and 1900, were grudgingly 
willing to countenance not only Negro voting but limited Negro 
officeholding. Georgia Populists could never bring themselves to pay 
such a price, and therein perhaps lay one important difference be- 
tween the agrarian revolt in the upper South and that of the deep 

While many of the ills of Georgia's Republicans were self-inflicted, 
Professor Shadgett suggests in her conclusion that at the end of the 
century the party suffered a final crushing blow that came from with- 
out. This was the establishment by the Democrats of their state-wide 
nominating primary in 1898 and its quick development, in 1900, 
into the white primary. Opposition to Democratic candidates in the 
general election virtually ceased after 1900. And few there were who 
would have dreamed that Georgia, the Empire State of the South 
and the unfailing bastion of Democracy, would move into the Re- 
publican presidential column in 1964. 

Robert F. Durden 

Duke University 

Book Reviews 241 

came deeply involved in the events of the war and in its political, 
economic, and social consequences. William Warren Rogers, Assistant 
Professor of History at Florida State University, relates the story of 
the increasing involvement of the people of Thomas County and the 
changes that the war wrought in their lives. Beginning with a brief 
survey of the social and economic conditions in Thomas County in 
1861, Professor Rogers leads his reader through successive chapters 
dealing with preparations for war, the records of Thomas County 
units in the regular army and in the state militia, provisions, life in 
camp and on the home front, agriculture and slavery, the prisoner 
of war camp near Thomasville, and the final distintegration of defeat. 
The treatment of these varied topics is based on what appears to be 
an exhaustive examination of local private sources, public records 
both printed and manuscript, and collections of manuscripts at uni- 
versities in Georgia and North Carolina. 

The lack of unity, which is the chief fault of the book, comes 
largely from the nature of the task that has been undertaken. A county 
is seldom a geographic entity, and only in a limited way a political 
unit. Socially and culturally counties can rarely be distinguished from 
surrounding areas. It is therefore well-nigh impossible to create from 
the limited materials of so brief a period any unified view. In this 
instance the unity is supplied by the war, and the general effect is 
of peripheral comment. Rather than being considered as only a 
minor item in Civil War bibliography, Professor Rogers' book should 
more properly be recognized as the second of three volumes of a 
history of Thomas County from 1826 to the present. Until the publi- 
cation of the final volume, the judgment of any part of the complete 
work must remain tentative. 

Edward M. Steel, Jr. 

West Virginia University 

Slavery in the South : A Collection of Contemporary Accounts of the Sys- 
tem of Plantation Slavery in the Southern United States in the Eigh- 
teenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Edited and with an Introduction by 
Harvey Wish. Materials of American History Series. (New York: 
Farrar, Straus and Company. 1964. Introduction, bibliography, index. 
Pp. xxi, 290. $4.95, cloth; $1.95, paper.) 

This is one of a projected series called Materials of American 
History, and it is an excellent beginning. This particular volume con- 
cerns slavery in the South as seen from the contemporary accounts 

242 The North Carolina Historical Review 

of Negroes—both slave and free— of visitors from the North and from 
Great Britain, and of southerners, principally slavery protagonists. 
In great part, these are the familiar authors, Nat Turner, Frederick 
Douglass, Fanny Kemble, Frederick Law Olmsted, Thomas Dew, 
George Fitzhugh, but there are some less well known commentators 
that add fresh notes to the discussion. In the Negro collection, Char- 
lotte Forten who wrote of slavery on the Sea Islands of Georgia (she 
saw its aftermath during Reconstruction) is a beautifully written, 
most appealing account of the children she saw as a young teacher. 
Of the visitors' accounts, Olmsted is most factual and objective; 
Fanny Kemble, the most emotionally involved; and Charles Mackay, 
the English poet and journalist, the most discerning of the broader 
social and political implications and effects of slavery. Indeed, Mac- 
key's article is both good reading and timely, if one substitutes racial 
discrimination for slavery in this section of the book. This reviewer 
wishes that the editor had included a few passages from Uncle Toms 
Cabin, even though it is fiction, but it had such tremendous impact 
on both North and South, that he could have justifiably included it. 

The southern writes include Thomas Jefferson, who did not believe 
in slavery but in the equality of the Negro, and Hinton Helper who 
spoke for the poor whites. Otherwise the authors are the familiar 
pro-slavery writers. 

As implied above, the book has a curious timeliness that adds to 
its value. Historical documents both illuminate the past and explain 
the present; these selections not only do that, but they illuminate the 
present also, giving new insight into the contemporary discussions 
of racial prejudice and discrimination. 

The editorial work is good, as is the press work. This early number 
augurs well for the series. 

Philip Davidson 

University of Louisville 

The Struggle for Equality: Abolitionists and the Negro in the Civil War 
and Reconstruction. By James M. McPherson. (Princeton, New Jersey: 
Princeton University Press. 1964. Illustrations, notes, index. Pp. ix, 474. 

Prior to 1861 all authentic abolitionists, regardless of the schisms 
within their ranks, crusaded for immediate, unconditional, and uni- 
versal emancipation and shared a common belief that real freedom 

Book Reviews 243 

for the Negro could come only with civil and political equality. 
Therefore, the ultimate goal of the abolitionists was not attained 
with the Emancipation Proclamation or the adoption of the 
Thirteenth Amendment. The thesis of this book is that abolitionism 
after 1861 retained its separate identity as a movement distinct from 
the Republican party and influenced the formulation of war and 
Reconstruction policies. Although this book presents a revisionist 
interpretation of a significant part of Civil War and Reconstruction 
history, Professor McPherson does not resort to polemics. He writes 
with considerable restraint, and he painstakingly documents his pres- 
entation from extensive research in manuscript and contemporary 
printed sources. 

In 1861 the abolitionists closed ranks to advocate immediate and 
universal abolition of slavery, the enlistment of Negro soldiers on 
equal terms with whites, government assistance for the education 
of the freedmen, confiscation of rebel lands and their redistribution 
among the former slaves, the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau, and 
the establishment of legal guarantees for Negro civil and political 
equality. All these goals, except lands for the freedmen and elements 
of discrimination in the army, had been achieved by 1870. Professor 
McPherson makes no claim that the abolitionists were solely responsi- 
ble for these achievements. He acknowledges that the policies were 
adopted because of military necessity or political expediency. He 
does prove, however, that the abolitionists helped to create the con- 
ditions that made the adoption of their program expedient. The Civil 
War transformed the abolitionists from "despised fanatics" into 
"prophets honored in their own country." In their new-found popu- 
larity, the abolitionists served as the conscience of the radical Re- 
publicans and worked vigorously and effectively to win support for 
their program. 

The success of abolitionist principles was only temporary. Freedom 
and legal equality for the Negro had in fact been adopted because of 
expediency and not because of northern acceptance of the idealistic 
equalitarian principles of the abolitionists. When it became expedient 
after 1870 to abandon equalitarianism it was abandoned. But all 
was not lost. There had been significant beginnings made in Negro 
education and whatever advances the Negro has made in recent 
times toward equality has been based in large part on the founda- 
tions laid by the abolitionists. 

One hesitates to critize such an excellent , study as Professor 
McPherson has written. The fact, however, that his research was 
confined almost exclusively to libraries and manuscript depositories 

244 The North Carolina Historical Review 

located in eastern states means that he has not given the attention to 
the western abolitionists that they deserve. Abolitionism, particularly 
evangelical abolitionism, did continue to exist as a strong and active 
force, independent of the Republican party, in the Old Northwest 
during the Civil War and Reconstruction. This reviewer would also 
wish that more attention had been given to the political role of the 
abolitionists in the former Confederate states during Reconstruction. 
This subject is disposed of in one paragraph in the book. 

Clifton H. Johnson 

LeMoye College 

Southern History in the Making: Pioneer Historians of the South. By 
Wendell Holmes Stephenson. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univer- 
sity Press, 1964. Notes and index. Pp. viii, 294. $7.50.) 

For two decades Professor Wendell H. Stephenson, now of the 
University of Oregon, has been engaged in research on historians 
who have influenced the study and teaching of southern history. His 
sketches have appeared in various professional journals, and three 
of them (on William E. Dodd, Ulrich B. Phillips, and Walter L. 
Fleming), along with a penetrating essay titled "The Southern 
Avenue to Now," were published in 1955 in his book, The South 
Lives in History: Southern Historians and Their Legacy. 

Of the 12 essays in Southern History in the Making, ten have been 
published previously and are reprinted with minor up-dating. These 
include sketches on seven historians— William Garrott Brown, Herbert 
B. Adams, William P. Trent, John Spencer Bassett (whose story is 
divided into two chapters), George Petrie, Phillips, and Charles W. 
Ramsdell; one archivist— Thomas M. Owen; and a philosophical essay 
titled "A Quarter Century of American Historical Scholarship." The 
two previously unpublished chapters comprise a sketch of William 
A. Dunning and a brief, delightful analysis of "Twenty-five Years of 
Southern Historical Writing." Then there is a 24-page introduction, 
sub-titled "The Making of a Book," a remarkable piece of Stephen- 
sonian wit and wisdom that ought to be required reading for all 
graduate students. 

The author, who himself has contributed significantly to the eleva- 
tion of southern history as a field of research, brings to light little 
known backgrounds and experiences of men who laid the foundation 
for modern historical scholarship in the South. He has humanized his 

Book Reviews 245 

subjects, and in so doing has produced biographical sketches that 
are as delightful as they are revealing. Here is the story of Dunning's 
expulsion from Dartmouth for hell-raising; of Brown's inspiring battle 
against disease; of Bassett's courageous stand for academic freedom; 
of Adams' encouragement of scholarship-holding students from the 
South; and of Phillips' unfulfilled desire to return to his native state 
of Georgia. 

But the lasting value of the essays is in Professor Stephenson's 
evaluation of the pioneer historians of the South and their works. 
Names like George Petrie and William P. Trent are all but forgotten 
except to a few historians; yet, as the author so effectively points out, 
they too, like Adams and Dunning, lit candles in the minds of their 
students. And how many young historians recognize the name of 
Thomas M. Owen, the lawyer-politician who, along with other south- 
erners like B. D. W. Connor and J. G. de B. Hamilton of North Caro- 
lina and Dunbar Bowland of Mississippi, fathered the movement 
for archival and manuscript repositories in the South? The names 
and contributions of these and other lesser known pioneers in south- 
ern history will be perpetuated as a result of Professor Stephenson's 

The essays in book form are less satisfactory than they were as 
articles in journals because of repetition (for instance, several essays 
contain essentially the same story of Adams' seminar at Johns Hop- 
kins ) and an overworking of some viewpoints ( e.g., the "dry-as-dust" 
monographs at the turn of the century). This reviewer hopes that 
Professor Stephenson will yet carry out his original plan to write a 
"comprehensive history of southern history" which he envisioned 
twenty years ago. 

Southern History in the Making is well documented, attractively 
printed, and contains an exceptionally good index. But the Louisiana 
State University Press cannot be forgiven for using a cumbersome 
combination of notes both at the bottom of the page and also at the 
end of the book. 

H. G. Jones 

State Department of Archives and History 

246 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The Pursuit of Southern History : Presidential Addresses of the Southern 
Historical Association, 1935-1963. Edited by George Brown Tindall 
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. 1964. Pp. xxi, 541. 

The Presidential Address, which climaxes the orgiastic rite of the 
"annual dinner," is— to quote a former president of one of them— 
"inescapably implanted in the customs of American . . . professional 
organizations." It is, he continued, an "inevitable and often painful 
ordeal that we are periodically compelled to undergo." "Inevitable" 
and "painful" they may be, but presidential addresses seem to attract 
prospective editors. The editor of a professional organization other 
than the Southern Historical Association once suggested republishing 
the presidential addresses of his society. Such a publication, he 
pointed out, presented no problems of selection (all) or arrangement 
(chronological). This particular project was abandoned when the 
wise president of the organization pointed to the unevenness of the 
addresses and expressed doubts that any potential market really 
existed for them. 

In editing the present agglomeration, Dr. Tindall had problems 
neither of selection nor of arrangement. He includes all addresses 
from the first through James W. Silver's dramatic "Mississippi: The 
Closed Society," delivered in 1963. They are presented in the order 
in which they were given— or would have been given if World War 
II had not caused the cancellation of three meetings. The editor 
even had the advantage of an earlier analysis of the first 15 addresses 
-H. C. Nixon's delightful "Paths to the Past: The Presidential 
Addresses of the Sounthern Historical Association," The Journal of 
Southern History, XVI (February, 1950), 33-39. 

The addresses fall, generally, into three categories, although they 
are not so arranged: southern historiography, sectionalism and the 
Civil War, and life in the old and the new South. The point of view 
and the scholarship of some of them are outdated; several of them 
were taken from or related to books that had been or would be 
written. Later scholarship very likely has changed conclusions that 
were valid at the time they were made. 

The person interested in the history of public records in the South, 
for example, would find Ernst Posner's recent American State 
Archives of more value than J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton's "Three 
Centuries of Southern Records, 1607-1907," written more than 20 
years ago. In discussing the Tennessee frontier and land speculators, 
Thomas Perkins Abernethy in 1937 obviously could not have used 

Book Reviews 247 

William H. Masterson's biography, William Blount, published 17 
years later. 

It seems likely, moreover, that a reader interested in Thomas D. 
Clark's newspaper studies would find his The Rural Press and the 
New South of somewhat greater value than his "The Country News- 
paper: A Factor in Southern Opinion, 1865-1930." Bell Irvin Wiley's 
The Life of Johnny Reb and The Life of Billy Yank are much more 
useful to those interested in the life of the common soldier during the 
Civil War than is his "A Time of Greatness." And Silver's Mississippi: 
The Closed Society is a more thorough discussion than is his shorter 
address of the same name. 

It is unfortunate that some of the addresses have been wrenched 
out of the context of their time. The opinions expressed by A. B. 
Moore in 1942, for example, are no longer widely accepted; his 
defense of segregation and his denunciation of efforts to "subvert the 
social system of the South" may no longer represent Dr. Moore's 
point of view. It is probable that there are other addresses that the 
authors would prefer to have forgotten rather than dragged out anew 
and paraded before a sophisticated and scoffing audience. 

It is this reviewer's opinion that this is one book that would have 
been better left unpublished. 

One final comment: When will publishers learn that notes are 
more useful printed at the bottom of the page rather than in the 
back of the book as they are in this case? Oddly enough, some 
readers actually read the notes, and it is most frustrating to attempt 
to locate one when it is printed with dozens of other notes at the 
back of the book. 

Thornton W. Mitchell 

State Department of Archives and History 

Upton and the Army. By Stephen E. Ambrose. (Baton Kouge : Louisiana 
State University Press, 1964. Illustrations, notes, index. Pp. ix, 190. 

Few persons other than thorough students of American military 
tactics and policy ever heard of Emory Upton. This fact alone would 
justify this biography. Fresh out of West Point, Upton rushed into 
the conflict of 1861 with great enthusiasm. His dash and determina- 
tion plus the exercise of good military judgment impressed his 
superiors and made him a marked man, although he was not responsi- 

248 The North Carolina Historical Review 

ble for any great Union victories. He saw service at Spotsylvania, 
Sharpsburg, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and in the Valley, but 
his most pleasing experience was his service under James H. Wilson 
in the invasion of Alabama near the close of the war. Although he 
rose to brevet major general by the age of twenty-six, his impatience 
and distrust of citizen soldiers, especially political generals, developed 
within him a gnawing discontent that he never overcame. 

It was in the postwar period and in the fields of tactics and military 
policy, rather than in active leadership of troops, that Upton dis- 
tinguished himself and left a lasting impression of his talents. His 
volume on Infantry Tactics became the text at West Point; following 
an extensive tour of study abroad he published The Armies of Asia 
and Europe; and after his death his Military Policy of the United 
States was published by the War Department. 

Throughout his career Upton stressed the efficiency and economy 
of moderate-sized, well-trained armies rather than great masses of 
untrained citizen soldiers. He became well known in military circles 
for his statement that "twenty thousand regulars at Bull Run would 
have routed the insurgents, settled the question of military resistance, 
and relieved us the pain and suspense of four years of war." He 
strongly advocated complete federal control of such armies; he re- 
fused to spend time attempting to work out a system that "could 
both give America a professional army and satisfy the States' 
Righters." He further argued for complete control of military affairs 
by military men. 

Upton's theories were discussed by persons in high positions. Many 
agreed, but no great reforms were forthcoming. Upton could have 
borne controversy in which he could fight back, but he was unable 
to endure being ignored. Feeling that his life had been a failure, 
that, although many listened, no one with authority was willing to 
push for action, Upton no longer desired to live. He took his own 
life at the age of forty-one. 

His biographer does not feel that his life was a failure. He sees 
Upton as one "who was proud of his profession" and who "helped 
keep alive a sense of pride and purpose in an army that might 
otherwise have sunk into a permanent morass. He was a devoted 
public servant who strove to anticipate and meet his nation's needs. 
At times his vision was narrow, but his contributions were real. When 
he killed himself he was certain of failure. He was wrong. Emory 
Upton both symbolized and helped preserve the best in the army." 

This is an excellent study of an important figure in American 

Book Reviews 249 

military history. It is strongly recommended to all who are interested 
in military tactics and policy. 

J. H. Parks 

The University of Georgia 

Lincoln's Gadfly, Adam Gurowski. By LeRoy H. Fischer. (Norman: Uni- 
versity of Oklahoma Press. 1964. Illustrations, notes, bibliography, index. 
Pp. xvii, 301. $6.95.) 

To students of the Civil War, Adam Gurowski has long been 
known, at least vaguely, as a Washington gossipmonger and radical 
Republican fanatic who wrote (among his 19 published books) a 
three-volume diary covering the war years. Now, in LeRoy H. 
Fischer's study, the eccentric Pole stands out as a recognizable person, 
with all his mannerisms, his accent, and his inevitable blue goggles. 
His earlier career, as a Polish revolutionary and then as a Russian 
bureaucrat and Pan-Slav propagandist, is adequately set forth. His 
career after 1849, as a lecturer, journalist, State Department clerk, 
and diarist in the United States, is fully covered, with especially de- 
tailed treatment of the diary itself. Gurowski's diary is the most im- 
portant single source for Fischers study, but a great many other 
sources also have been used; indeed, the research may fairly be de- 
scribed as exhaustive. The only serious question about the book con- 
cerns the importance of its subject. Gurowski is here described as 
"Lincoln's gadfly" and is revealed as the author of a number of letters 
to Lincoln, but no evidence is offered to show that any of these 
letters influenced Lincoln in the slightest. Gurowski, it is said, was 
the only man whom Lincoln ever feared as a possible assassin, but 
the solitary source for this is a later recollection of Lincoln's body- 
guard, Ward Hill Lamon. It is contended, moreover, that Gurowski 
kept "the most faithful and complete record" of the thinking of 
radical Republicans, and that he "delineated a clear community of 
interests and ambitions among Radicals." Yet, on the showing of 
Fischer's study itself, Gurowski never remained for very long on 
good terms with any of the radicals, except possibly Edwin M. 
Stanton. And, on the showing of the three volumes of the diary, it 
would appear that Gurowski seldom if ever gave voice to such a 
thing as a radical consensus but, fanatic that he was, usually repre- 
sented nobody but himself. Fischer's study won the $5,000 literary 
award presented in 1963 by the War Library and Museum and the 

250 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Pennsylvania Commandery of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion 
of the United States. 

Richard N. Current 

The University of Wisconsin 

The Meaning of the American Revolution. By Dan Lacy. (New York : The 
New American Library. 1964. Illustrations, chronology, bibliographical 
note, index. Pp. 308. $5.95.) 

Dan Lacy's name is well known to many readers of The North 
Carolina Historical Review. State supervisor of the Historical Records 
Survey of North Carolina and coeditor with Dr. Christopher Critten- 
den of the Historical Records of North Carolina, Mr. Lacy has not 
previously written at length on the American Revolution. This may 
well be a virtue, for he brings to this volume a detachment enabling 
him to steer a steady course between the conflicting schools of Rev- 
olutionary scholarship. 

Was the Revolution a conservative movement or a liberal-radical 
movement? Generally, Mr. Lacy leans toward the neo-Whig inter- 
pretation of the Revolution: of a movement to preserve political 
theories and institutions that had evolved during a century and a 
half of Colonial development. Yet the Revolution was radical in the 
sense that for the first time a new nation was literally created on the 
principles of equal rights and government by consent. One of the 
most admirable features of this lucidly written volume is the author's 
placing of the Revolution within its world context. Here the closer 
military and commercial unity of the eighteenth century, the influence 
of Enlightenment thought on the founding fathers, and the dynamic 
impact of the Revolution upon Europe are well described. It seems, 
however, that recent scholarship would call into question a number of 
the author's remarks about suffrage and land ownership. Nor was 
the British army "radically reduced" in size in 1763, especially when 
compared with reductions following earlier wars. Minor reservations 
aside, this is a book that literate laymen will read with genuine 
profit in the mid-twentieth century world of nationalism and revolu- 
tions. For under the sure guidance of Mr. Lacy one sees both the 
unique and the universal features of the American Revolution. 

Don Higginbotham 

Louisiana State University 

Book Reviews 251 

Justice Daniel Dissenting : A Biography of Peter V. Daniel, 1784-1860. By- 
John P. Frank. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 
1964. Notes, table of cases, index. Pp. xii, 336. $7.95.) 

Justice Peter V. Daniel was not one of the great jurists of the 
United States Supreme Court. His moderate intellectual ability and 
verbose and twisting prose style made him only an average nine- 
teenth-century justice. Few of his colleagues however, surpassed 
Daniel in his immovable dedication to principle and firm resistance 
to change. 

Daniel studied law with Edmund Randolph of Virginia, married 
Randolph's daughter and moved into the state's ruling clique. For 
twenty-three years he served on the Virginia Council of State and as 
Lieutenant Governor and became a major Jackson- Van Buren lieu- 
tenant in Virginia. President Martin Van Buren named Daniel a 
federal district judge in 1836 and in February, 1841, appointed him 
to the United States Supreme Court. 

In the two decades before the Civil War the voice of Justice Daniel 
was that of a "high-church agrarian" who warned constantly against 
the growing influence of corporations and mercantile interests. He 
set forth in his numerous dissents a very narrow concept of the 
powers of the federal government. To the very end, Daniel refused 
to recognize jurisdiction of federal courts over corporations or to 
grant federal courts admiralty jurisdiction in inland waters. 

Much of Daniel's work on the supreme bench concerned routine 
questions of little interest today. The justices spent several months 
each year attending to their circuit court duties. In Daniel's case this 
meant a three-month tour of 5,000 miles through the Southwest, a 
chore not calculated to improve his already bitter disposition. 

Author John P. Frank admits that Justice Daniel was, in part, an 
old man dedicated to principles that have become obsolete. But 
there are areas in which his work is important to twentieth-century 
jurisprudence. These would include Daniel's view of the contract 
clause of the Federal Constitution in which he said that contract 
rights must yield where public good demands it, his denial that the 
federal commerce power is exclusive, his great respect for the jury 
system, and his views on the preservation of public lands. 

John P. Frank, an Arizona attorney, has written the first full-length 
biography of Justice Daniel. It is a thorough and analytical piece of 
work. Frank's style of writing does much to enliven a rather colorless 
figure. This biography is most valuable as a case study of a nine- 

252 The North Carolina Historical Review 

teenth-century agrarian justice who grew embittered by his inability 
to change events. 

Richard D. Younger 
University of Houston 

History of the People of the United States : From the Revolution to the 
Civil War. By John Bach McMaster. Selected and edited with intro- 
duction by Louis Filler. Materials of American History Series. (New 
York: Farrar, Straus & Company. 1964. Introduction, epilogue. Pp. 
370. $5.50, cloth; $2.45, paper.) 

Among those whose writings stand at the base of knowledge of the 
American past is John Bach McMaster. His eight-volume History, 
published over the years from 1883 to 1913, is the pioneer work in 
American historiography of social history; in his case told descrip- 
tively rather than analytically. 

Professor Louis Filler has selected from this History eight abstracts 
devoted to life in the United States during eras of peace ranging 
from the Confederation and Constitution period to the Log Cabin and 
Cider Election of 1840. McMaster regarded peacetime as the norm 
of American life; hence, his methodology is best revealed in these 
periods. Professor Filler, however, suggests that if this selection is 
well received, a second volume confined to times of crises and 
change will be issued. 

This is one of a new series of historical materials to be published; 
a series titled Materials of American History Series. It is to include 
reprints of important historical studies, collections of documents and 
memoirs, important biographies and the like. One can hope that the 
other volumes will be better edited than this one from McMaster. 
While Professor Filler has, no doubt, captured the essential spirit of 
the social historian, he has nowhere stated the sources of his selec- 
tions. This may not be necessary to an appreciation of McMaster, 
but it would have been helpful to the reader to know the exact 
volumes from which these abstracts were taken. 

Robert N. Elliott 

North Carolina State of The University 
of North Carolina at Raleigh 

Book Reviews 253 

The American Enlightenment : The Shaping of the American Experiment 
and a Free Society. Selected and edited with introduction and notes by 
Adrienne Koch. (New York: George Braziller. 1965. Pp. 669. $8.50.) 

Miss Koch has brought together in one volume selections from 
the writings and papers of five leading representatives of the Ameri- 
can Enlightenment: Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jeffer- 
son, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Since nearly all of 
the material has been previously published in standard collections, 
the major contribution of this work is the skill with which the editor, 
deeply versed in the period, has chosen from the voluminous papers 
of these five extraordinary figures significant and representative selec- 
tions. When grouped in one volume, these writings not only offer 
convenient and rewarding reading but also support the thesis that 
Miss Koch argues in a penetrating introduction: the existence of a 
distinctive American Enlightenment. Rejecting the arguments that 
American thought was without originality and was merely derivative 
from European ideas, she sees as the essential factors shaping the 
American Enlightenment the struggle for independence and the sub- 
sequent groping with the problems of giving direction and commit- 
ment to the society and government of the new nation. The American 
Enlightenment was politically oriented, and the men represented in 
this book were learned and politically inventive, competent in abstract 
ideas and in their practical application. They were architects of ideas 
in a crucial period in the formation of American political institutions. 
Moreover, the writings of these men display the role of the greatest 
of all historical forces, the human agent. 

The selections in the volume are arranged under the five authors. 
Each section begins with excerpts from such writings as may be 
considered autobiographical; next follow letters arranged in chrono- 
logical sequence; extracts from other writings conclude each part. 
The selections clearly display that these highly individualistic men 
did not all think alike, nor act alike, nor write alike. But they shared 
a common commitment to the advancement of human freedom. To- 
gether the writings make clear the large body of systematic thought 
and the important literature which were the products of the American 
Enlightenment. Hopefully, the volume may serve to convince a wide 
audience of the richness of an American past worth knowing. 

Noble E. Cunningham, Jr. 

University of Missouri 

254 The North Carolina Historical Review 

' A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church. By Raymond W. Albright. 
(New York: The Macmillan Company. 1964. Notes, bibliography, 
index. Pp. x, 406. $12.50.) 

Professor Albright, who is also an ordained priest of the Episcopal 
Church, teaches church history at the Theological Seminary in Cam- 
bridge, Massachusetts. His book bears evidence of many years of 
devoted research and is filled with detailed information as well as 
sweeping accounts of trends and movements within the church in the 
United States. A chapter devoted to background information on the 
English heritage of the church is followed by a series of chapters on 
the development of the Episcopal Church in various regions: Virginia, 
elsewhere in the South; Massachusetts, other New England states; 
New York, and Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Subsequent chapters 
treat the history of the church in more or less chronological order 
from an over-all point of view. There are chapters on the church 
during the Revolution, the Civil War, and on the frontier. Others 
deal with the Oxford Movement and party spirit, modern thought, 
social action, the world-wide mission field, and with the church in 
the modern era. 

The text is both readable (though long enough to require several 
sittings) and useful for reference. North Carolina's Bishops Ravens- 
croft, Ives, and Atkinson are treated adequately as are some of her 
earlier missionary priests, but this is too general a history to do more 
than place them in their time. 

Each chapter is carefully documented with many of the citations 
being to manuscript and contemporary printed sources. A 16-page 
Bibliography will be useful to anyone interested in further reading 
on the subject. While the Index contains the names of a great many 
individuals and places mentioned in the text, it is by no means as 
perfect an index as many users might wish. The North Carolina 
reader, for example, will not be able to find the material on Clement 
Hall and on Valle Crucis through use of the Index. The book is 
attractively and substantially bound although there are no illustra- 
tions. Margins are rather narrow and lines of type are set close 
together giving each page a solid appearance. The small type seems 
even smaller on those pages which are broken by only two or three 
indentations for paragraphs. 

William S. Powell 

The University of North Carolina 
at Chapel Hill 

Book Reviews 255 


The State is a magazine filled with interesting and useful informa- 
tion about North Carolina and North Carolinians. With the publica- 
tion of Index to The State Magazine, covering 30 volumes published 
from June, 1933, through May, 1963, it is now possible to find material 
heretofore buried and lost so far as practical use is concerned. The 
27 pages are set in three columns of fine print and the lack of capitali- 
zation, the use of abbreviations, and the general format make this 
particular index difficult for the general reader to use. As Bill Sharpe, 
who compiled the Index, points out in his prefatory remarks, the job 
was spread over a period of years and "some inconsistencies will be 
found in the way subjects have been classified. The compiler mentions 
this merely to inform the reader that the information he seeks may 
not be classified logically, but it is all here." A tremendous amount 
of information is indeed included, and librarians, persons doing re- 
search, and general readers will find it of great help to have an 
index to The State. Copies, at $5.00 each, are available from Bill 
Sharpe, The State, Raleigh. 

The Country Youth: Autobiography of B. B. McGee is the story 
of a native of Wilkes County, Bluford Bartlett McGee, who grew up 
in the Beaver Creek community. Born in March, 1832, McGee lived 
in the area of his birth until he went to California in 1849 at the age 
of eighteen. He failed to get rich from gold mining and was left a 
cripple with rheumatism resulting from exposure to weather and 
hardships of mining. He produced the story of his boyhood, an 
Indian story, and several poems during the period of his hospitaliza- 
tion. He eventually returned to the McGee home on Beaver Creek 
and died around 1883. McGee's writings have been reprinted by 
James Larkin Pearson, who points out that "this is the first book ever 
written by a native of Wilkes county. . . ." The 91-page booklet is 
available for $1.00 from Pearson Publishing Company, Box 41, Sparta 
Road, North Wilkesboro, 28659. 

From England to North Carolina: Two Special Gifts, by Ethel 
Stephens Arnett, was published by The Try on Palace Restoration, 
New Bern. The 93-page booklet is illustrated and contains charts and 
notes. England's "two special gifts" were William Tryon, Royal Gov- 
ernor of North Carolina from 1765 to 1771, and William Sydney 
Porter (O. Henry), the noted writer. Mrs. Arnett traces the ancestry 
of both and shows their common descent from the Shirley family of 


256 The North Carolina Historical Review 

England. Copies of the publication may be obtained from Try on 
Palace, New Bern, or from Straughan's Book Shop, Inc., 116 West 
Market Street, Greensboro, for $2.00 plus 25 cents mailing charge. 

Historical Sketches of North Carolina, by John H. Wheeler, was 
originally published in 1851. The book has long been valued for its 
coverage of North Carolina history, with emphasis on the 1780 to 
1850 period. The sketches from 1584 to 1851 were complied from 
original records, official documents, and statements obtained by the 
author. Sketches of distinguished North Carolinians were also in- 
cluded. John Hill Wheeler, who had served as treasurer of the state, 
was the first native of North Carolina to devote considerable time 
to the history of his own state. A second printing in 1925 was small 
and has long been scarce. The Regional Publishing Company has 
now reprinted the work as it originally appeared, with the addition 
of a one-page "Publisher's Preface/' It is unfortunate that the pub- 
lisher did not have a competent historian write an introduction to 
the new reprint. Copies of the book, 480 pages, may be ordered from 
the publisher at 521-523 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, Maryland, 21202, 
for $10.00. 

Volume 46 of The James Sprunt Studies in History and Political 
Science, published by The University of North Carolina Press, is 
entitled Laudatores Temporis Acti. Edited by Mary Francis Gyles and 
Eugene Wood Davis, the publication contains studies in memory of 
Wallace Everett Caldwell. More than a dozen colleagues, friends, 
and students of Professor Caldwell contributed to the volume. All 
of the essays are in the field of ancient history, the subject taught 
for years at The University of North Carolina by Professor Caldwell. 
Copies are available from the The University of North Carolina Press 
for $2.50. 

History of Union County, by H. Nelson Walden, is a small book of 
79 pages, available for $5.00 from Heritage Printers, Inc., Charlotte. 
The author, in the Introduction, says that he has "not attempted . . . 
the writing of a completely definitive, encyclopedic history. This 
thesis makes no pretensions in that direction. It has been shaped by 
the amount of information available, time limitations, financial limita- 
tions, the judgment of the author. . . ." Such a statement is unneces- 
sary to anyone who reviews the book. It is unfortunate that the 
author was unable to do more detailed research in original records 

Book Reviews 257 

and that careless errors in footnote and bibliographical entries were 
made. The inclusion of the Bibliography and Index merit recognition. 

Theodore Newsom's U.S. Pocket History is a handy reference 
work for students of American history. Brief paragraphs on subjects 
ranging from "A.B.C. Powers" and "Abolitionist" to "York, Canada" 
and "Yorktown" are included in the 160 pages. The Preface indicates 
that the author did not intend to discuss men of significance in state 
affairs but only to include those of national importance. U.S. Pocket 
History is available for $2.95 from The Naylor Company, 1015 
Culebra Avenue, P. O. Box 1838, San Antonio, Texas. 

/The Reverend Harry R. Mathis has compiled and edited a book 
entitled Along the Border. It is a history of Virgilina, Virginia, and 
the surrounding area in Halifax and Mecklenburg counties in Virginia 
and Person and Granville counties in North Carolina. In addition to 
general information about the area, there are histories of local 
churches and organizations. Many names are included, making the 
publication of interest to genealogists. Illustrations add to the value 
of Along the Border. The book was printed by Coble Press, Oxford; 
copies of the 344-page book are $7.00. 

Readings in American Values, by William Miller, is a 369-page 
book of public documents. The documents are designed in content 
and layout so that they will be read and the theme, "the elaboration 
of the values by which Americans have conducted their public 
affairs," will be clear. Documents which one would naturally expect 
to find in such a book as this are included and it is hardly necessary 
to mention such writings as the Mayflower Compact, Declaration of 
Independence, Constitution of the United States, and Emancipation 
Proclamation. Others are less well known, but their significance makes 
their inclusion appropriate. Examples are Horace Mann's Fifth 
Annual Report to the Massachusetts Board of Education, Senator 
Albert J. Beveridge's Speech on Retaining the Philippine Islands, 
and the Charter of the United Nations. Readers will find this book 
a rich source for quick reference to the basic documents of American 
history. Copies of the paper-bound publication are available from the 
publisher, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, for 



Director's Office 

The Tryon Palace Commission met at New Bern on November 15-16. 

Dr. Christopher Crittenden spoke in Sparta on November 20 at the 
dedication of the Robert L. Doughton Wing of the Alleghany County 
Hospital and the unveiling of a historical marker to Doughton. 

The George Washington Statue Commission, of which Senator Hector 
MacLean is chairman, held a luncheon meeting at the Velvet Cloak Motel 
in Raleigh, November 25. 

Dr. Crittenden, Mrs. Joye Jordan, and other staff members held meet- 
ings with the joint legislative committee, of which Representative James 
B. Vogler of Mecklenburg is chairman, to place plaques in the Capitol 
and in the State Legislative Building. 

On January 14 Dr. Oliver W. Holmes, executive director of the National 
Historical Publications Commission; met with various staff member of 
the Department to discuss the Colonial Records Project and certain 
other projects which might possibly qualify for grants from the Com- 

The Raleigh Historical Sites Commission met Tuesday, February 16. 
Mr. W. S. Tarlton reported on the result of the recommendations of the 
historic zoning proposals of the North Carolina Legislative Council. The 
Council, through a special committee, has been studying the possible 
need in North Carolina for enabling legislation permitting municipalities 
to do historical zoning. Mr. Tarlton stated that the Council, at the present 
time, has decided not to recommend action to the General Assembly. A 
report was made on the City Cemetery; adequate lighting will be pro- 
vided. Mrs. Raymond Murray and Mrs. Bruce Carter were appointed to 
supervise repairs and improvements. 

On Washington's birthday Dr. Crittenden attended the initial meeting, 
in the Governor's Mansion, of the advisory committee on furnishings for 
the mansion. Mrs. James Semans of Durham was elected chairman and 
Mr. Charles Stanford of the North Carolina Museum of Art vice-chair- 
man. A preliminary discussion was held. 

Mr. Ray S. Wilkinson, president, and others of the Historical Halifax 
Restoration Association met in the Department's assembly room February 
23 to discuss plans for the development and maintenance of Historic 

Dr. Crittenden continued to travel to various places in the state and 
to meet with, and deliver addresses to, many historical groups. 

Historical News 259 

Division of Archives and Manuscripts 

With the permission of Lieutenant Governor Robert W. Scott, the 
Division of Archives and Manuscripts began the significant experiment 
of sound-recording sessions of the State Senate on the opening day of 
the 1965 General Assembly. For several years the feasibility of recording 
on sound the proceedings and debates of the two houses has been dis- 
cussed and equipment and personnel were made available by the division 
on a trial basis. If successful, and if the General Assembly provides the 
necessary funds, it is expected that all sessions of both houses will be 
recorded beginning in 1967. As was pointed out in the department's 
request before the Joint Appropriations Committee, the legislative jour- 
nals give little more than a skeleton of what goes on in the sessions, and 
newspaper accounts are always incomplete and often distorted. A sound 
recording, however, taken directly from the amplification system in the 
chamber, records for posterity not only what is said and done but also 
the voices of the legislators. 

The long-awaited Guide to Private Manuscript Collections in the North 
Carolina State Archives is expected to be available for distribution by 
mid-summer. The new guide will describe all private collections received 
through June 30, 1964, and will be available for $5.25 from the Division 
of Publications. 

Mr. H. G. Jones, State Archivist, attended the annual meeting of the 
American Historical Association and the mid-winter Council meeting of 
the Society of American Archivists, of which he is treasurer, in Wash- 
ington, D.C., December 27-30. 

Among the more significant acquisitions of the Archives in recent 
months were the 1963 correspondence and papers of Governor Terry 
Sanford (111 boxes) ; the records of the Governor's Press Secretary, 
1961-1965 (ca. 35 boxes) ; the records of the Governor's Special Assistant 
for Cultural and Educational Affairs, 1961-1965 (20 boxes) ; minutes, 
dockets, and records of the North Carolina Supreme Court, 1800-1930 
(332 volumes) ; original case files of the North Carolina Supreme Court, 
1800-1909 (300 reels, 16 mm. microfilm) ; a 16 mm. motion picture film 
of the Lafayette Escadrille, made by the French government in 1916; 
and copies of 11 letters of a Confederate soldier, Lewis Waynick. 

Two long-range projects have been completed: the processing and 
arrangement of the papers of Reginald A. Fessenden, inventor of voice- 
radio communication (95 boxes) ; and the abstracting of the extant 
original returns and newspaper accounts of elections in North Carolina 
for president, governor, congressmen, state conventions, and constitutional 
amendments for the period 1790-1900. 

Mr. Don Nichols was transferred from temporary to permanent status 
as Archivist I, effective January 1; and Miss Doris Sanders was em- 
ployed as Archivist I (temporary), effective February 16. 

The Local Records Section has completed the microfilming of the 
permanently valuable records of Rutherford and Warren counties. Sec- 
tion operators are now at work in Rockingham and Wayne counties and 
county operators are microfilming in Buncombe, Guilford, and Mecklen- 
burg counties. Forty-eight counties have been completed to date. 

260 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Varying types and quantities of original records have been received 
from Rutherford and Warren counties. Large quantities of papers from 
Anson and Hertford counties have been processed. Microfilm copies of 
records of Burke and Mecklenburg counties and of a number of churches 
have also been made available to the public. Complete lists of these are 
available in the Search Room. 

On January 11 Mr. Donald E. Tedder was employed as a Clerk III 
(microfilm cameraman) ; Miss Patricia A. Brafford resigned as Stenog- 
rapher II on January 30. 

Rear Admiral A. M. Patterson, Assistant State Archivist (Local Rec- 
ords), addressed training classes of municipal administrators and 
registers of deeds, held at the Institute of Government, Chapel Hill. His 
article entitled "Municipal Records and Records Management" appeared 
in the February issue of Popular Government, published by the Institute 
of Government. 

During October, the State Records Section salvaged 131 cubic feet of 
records of the Board of Nurse Registration and Nursing Education 
damaged and water-soaked in the Warren Building fire on October 1. The 
records, individual case files of registered and licensed practical nurses, 
were separated, dried, and reassembled. Many of the files had been 
burned, however, and in January the board and the department agreed 
that the surviving records, which were incomplete and unusable, would 
be destroyed. 

The Civil Defense Agency schedule has been approved, thus completing 
schedules for all state agencies. A revision program has already been 
started, however, and new schedules for the Industrial Commission and 
the Department of Agriculture are awaiting approval. 

During the quarter ending December 31, 1,322 cubic feet of records 
were received in the State Records Center, and disposal was made of 
1,161 cubic feet. The staff performed 9,070 references during the same 

Mr. Claude R. Moore, Jr., resigned as Records Management Consultant 
I effective December 31. On January 1, Mrs. Rebecca K. Clegg, formerly 
Archivist II, was promoted to Records Management Consultant I; Miss 
Elizabeth Ann Peters, formerly Archivist I, was promoted to Archivist 
II; and Mr. William B. Batton, formerly Clerk III in the Local Records 
Section, was promoted to Archivist I and transferred to the State Rec- 
ords Section. 

Division of Historic Sites 

The Historical Highway Marker Advisory Committee met in Chapel 
Hill on November 19 and approved ten markers. The marker for Robert 
L. Doughton was dedicated in special ceremonies held in Sparta on No- 
vember 20. 

Visitation for the calendar year 1964 at the nine historic sites totaled 
452,411. For the month of January, 1965, 19,726 persons visited the sites 
as compared to 7,211 for the same month last year. 

Bids for the $30,000 visitor center-museum at the Richard Caswell 

Historical News 261 

Memorial were opened on February 11. The low bids exceeded the budget 
by some $3,000. Before continuing plans for the museum some adjust- 
ments will be made in the specifications to bring the project within the 
budgetary limits. 

The Cupola House in Edenton is undergoing restoration supervised 
jointly by the Cupola House Association, the Historic Edenton and Chowan 
County Commission, and the State Department of Archives and History. 
Several members of the staff, particularly Mr. A. L. Honeycutt, Jr., are 
assisting with this project. The major changes will include a new heating 
system, a completely revamped electrical service, and the reproduction 
of the elaborate woodwork in the downstairs rooms. Measured drawings 
of the original woodwork, now on display at the Brooklyn Museum, have 
been made and this work is being supervised by Mr. Wilbert Kemp. Mr. 
David M. Warren, President of the Cupola House Association, is co-ordi- 
nating the entire project which will be an outstanding period house when 

At the Aycock Birthplace State Historic Site the stables have been 
restored. Mr. James E. Ivey, Historic Site Assistant, was able to procure 
enough old materials to finish approximately one-half the interior. When 
the remainder is completed the space will be used to exhibit farm imple- 
ments and tools of the 1860's. 

Construction has been started on the Zebulon B. Vance Birthplace State 
Historic Site Visitor Center-Museum. Preliminary plans are being made 
for the exhibits to be installed later in 1965. 

Exhibits for the Fort Fisher State Historic Site Visitor Center-Museum 
are being prepared by Mr. Frank Walsh, Mr. Robert Mayo, Mr. John D. 
Ellington, Mr. J. Alfred White, and Mr. James R. Vogt. Mr. Walsh is 
continuing the search for artifiacts to use at Fort Fisher. Persons wishing 
to donate or lend items may write him at Box 1881, Raleigh. A series of 
events commemorating the centennial of the battles and the fall of Fort 
Fisher were held January 10-17. A number of the staff members attended 
the January 15 program. 

Mr. W. S. Tarlton, Historic Sites Superintendent, made a trip to Yadkin 
College with Mr. James E. Holmes, son of a former president of the college 
which closed in 1924. Mr. Tarlton has suggested to a group interested in 
preserving one building and the site of the college that it undertake a 
private restoration project utilizing the building as a museum. There are 
a number of empty dwellings in the immediate vicinity which might be 
privately restored and used as the nucleus of a village-wide restoration. 

Museums Division 

During the fall 38 school groups were given guided tours of the museum 
and the 1842 Allen Kitchen. Special features included demonstrations of 
weaving, spinning, and quilting, and a lecture on the Colonial Period. 
Free printed materials were given to tour members. 

Mrs. Madlin Futrell, Photographer, was elected secretary of the Caro- 
linas Press Photographers Association which met in Charlotte October 18. 

Mr. Samuel P. Townsend, Assistant to the Museums Administrator, 

262 The North Carolina Historical Review 

attended the opening of the U.S.S. "North Carolina" Battleship Memorial 
Museum in Wilmington on November 11. 

A program of early North Carolina folk music and modern ballads 
was presented by Miss Lydia Fish of Raleigh on November 22. This was 
the third program in a series for the public on the last Sunday of each 
month. An overflow crowd attended. 

The Mobile Museum of History was on display in Wilmington and Fort 
Fisher January 11-15 in connection with the commemoration of the Battle 
of Fort Fisher. 

Mrs. Joye E. Jordan, Museums Administrator, attended a Council 
meeting of the American Association of Museums in Washington, D. C, 
January 21, and she and Mrs. Sue Todd, Registrar, attended the Antiques 
Forum Workshops in Williamsburg, Virginia where they studied a special 
collection of English porcelain, January 28. 

They met with museum personnel in High Point February 4 to discuss 
technical problems of forming a new museum there. 

In addition to the tours of the museum, the education staff now serves 
as temporary guides at the Governor's Mansion until docents can be pro- 

Division of Publications 

Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor, is on maternity leave March 1-June 14. 
During her absence, Mrs. Violet W. Quay, Editorial Assistant II, is acting 
as head of the division. 

For the fourth quarter, 1964, total receipts were $9,573 with $7,818 
being retained by the department and $1,755 being turned over to the 
North Carolina Literary and Historical Association. Publications dis- 
tributed included 429 documentary volumes; 13 copies of the Index to 
The North Carolina Historical Review; 10 letter books of governors; 935 
small books; 11,167 pamphlets, charts, and maps (including 360 Tercen- 
tenary pamphlets) ; 4,425 leaflets and brochures ; and 3,275 copies of the 
list of publications available from the department. In addition to this total 
of 20,254 were 1,961 copies of the Winter, 1965, issue of The Review and 
2,234 copies of the November issue and 2,238 copies of the January issue of 
Carolina Comments. 

Dr. Oliver W. Holmes and Dr. Frank Evans of the National Historical 
Publications Commission were in Raleigh on January 14 to discuss 
the editing and publications of the papers of James Iredell, Sr. Dr. Don 
Higginbotham of Louisiana State University is editing this series of 
papers. Dr. Horace Raper of Tennessee Polytechnic Institute came to 
Raleigh December 31 for a conference on his work as editor of the papers 
of W. W. Holden. 

Colonial Records Project 

Information regarding the governmental documents that have been 
inventoried is being assembled according to agency of origin, date, and 
other categories. Priority is being given to higher court records. Because of 
the great mass of extant records of higher courts, condensation will be 

Historical News 263 

necessary before publication. Although it is expected that minutes, plead- 
ing, and certain other documents will be published in full, it is believed 
that samples of routine documents accompanied by calendars of the 
surviving papers for each term of court will suffice. 


On December 4, 1964, Mr. Norman Larson, Executive Secretary, spoke 
to the North Carolina Literary and Historical Society on the progress of 
the commission during its four-year existence. 

In Washington, D. C, on December 21 and 22, Mr. Larson met with 
commission staff members relative to the publication of a roster of North 
Carolina troops in the Civil War, and with the United States Civil War 
Centennial Commission and with Senators Sam J. Ervin, Jr., and B. 
Everett Jordan to discuss 1965 programing. 

The Board of Directors of the North Carolina Confederate Corporation 
met in Raleigh on December 30. 

Activities commemorating the centennial of the fall of Fort Fisher took 
place in Wilmington and at the fort during the week of January 10-17. 
A memorial program was held at the Carolina Beach Community Center 
on January 15; a dramatic reading entitled "This is How it Happened," 
written and directed by Isabel Martin Williams and Billie Hyatt McEach- 
ern, was presented at Thalian Hall; Wilmington College had special 
exhibits during the week; and a television film on Fort Fisher and 
Wilmington, written and produced by Mr. Larson and members of the 
commission staff, was presented by Station WECT-TV. Interdenomi- 
national services in St. James Episcopal Church January 17 concluded 
the week of special events. 

On January 21 and 22 Mr. Larson and Mr. Jones traveled to Greens- 
boro to make plans for the centennial of the dissolution of the Confederate 
Cabinet on April 25, 1865, and to Asheville to discuss the commemoration 
of the Battle of Asheville, April 6, 1865. 

In Kinston and Washington on January 25 Mr. Larson and Mr. Robert 
Jones planned, respectively, for the Battle of Kinston commemoration, 
and for possible televising by WITN-TV Washington a film on the "Neuse," 
to be entitled "The Ram and the River." 

Several planning meetings were held for the battle re-enactment to be 
held on the Averasboro Battlefield March 20. 

On February 12 Mr. Larson was in Washington, D. C, to attend a 
Lincoln Birthday luncheon given by President and Mrs. Lyndon B. John- 
son and to discuss the possible participation of Vice-President Hubert 
Humphrey in the commemoration at the Bennett Place, April 24. 

Mr. Larson met with the South Carolina General Assembly on February 
17 and attended a commemorative program on the anniversary of the 
Battle of Columbia. He also visited the South Carolina Confederate Cen- 
tennial Commission to discuss that state's participation in the Averasboro 

264 The North Carolina Historical Review 


Professor Nicholas Mansergh, Smuts Professor of the History of the 
British Commonwealth and Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge Uni- 
versity, England, is Visiting William K. Boyd Professor of History at 
Duke University during the spring semester. Richard A. Preston of the 
Royal Military College of Canada has been named to fill this chair 
beginning September, 1965. 

Professor W. B. Hamilton edited The Transfer of Institutions (Duke 
University Press, 1965) in the Commonwealth Studies series of Duke 
University. Included in the volume are "The Transfer of Western Edu- 
cation to India," by Professor Robert I. Crane, and "The Transfer of 
British Military Institutions to Canada in the Nineteenth Century," by 
Professor Richard A. Preston. 

Among the participants in the program of the American Historical 
Association in Washington, D. C, December 28-30, were the following 
from Duke University: Professor John Tate Lanning, Professor Calvin 
D. Davis, Dr. Gillian T. Cell, Professor William B. Hamilton, Professor 
John S. Curtiss, and Professor Richard L. Watson, Jr. 

Professor Anne F. Scott has edited and written an introduction for a 
new edition of Jane Addams, Democracy and Social Ethics (Harvard Uni- 
versity Press, December, 1964) . She also edited The Many Lives of North 
Carolina Women, the report of the Governor's Commission on the Status 
of Women, and on February 1, appeared on WUNC-TV's "Encounter" 
series in a program devoted to the subject of women's employment. 

Professor William E. Scott will be on leave in 1965-1966 ; he has received 
grants from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Duke 
University Research Council for research in Europe on "The Origins of 
the Second World War, 1933-1939." He will be much of the year at the 
Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, Germany. Professor Scott's 
Alliance Against Hitler: The Origins of the Franco-Soviet Pact (Duke 
University Press, 1962) is being published this spring in a French edition 
by Editions Payot, Paris, as he Pacte Franco-Sovietique. 

The rapid development of the School of Liberal Arts of North Carolina 
State of The University of North Carolina at Raleigh since its establish- 
ment in 1963 resulted, on February 1, in the division of the Department of 
History and Political Science into two separate entities, the Department 
of History and the Department of Politics. Dr. Preston W. Edsall, who 
administered the combined disciplines for more than sixteen years, was 
designated head of the Department of Politics and Dr. Ralph W. Greenlaw 
was named head of the Department of History. 

Dr. Murray S. Downs has written an article, "George III and the Royal 
Coup of 1783," which appeared in The Historian for November, 1964. Dr. 

Historical News 265 

Marvin L. Brown is editor and translator (with Marta Huth) of Baroness 
von Riedesel and the American Revolution: Journal and Correspondence 
of a Tour of Duty. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 
1965). A condensation of the book under the title Baroness on the Battle- 
field was the American Heritage Book Selection for the issue of December, 
1964. The following are serving as part-time instructors during the 1964- 
1965 academic year: John B. Cameron, Robert G. Sherer, Dean S. Mac- 
Murray, Louis E. Schmier, and James K. Huhta. 

The federal government (United States Office of Education) has accepted 
and agreed to finance a summer institute in Recent United States History 
for Secondary School Teachers, to be sponsored and staffed by the East 
Carolina College History Department. Dr. John C. Ellen is director and 
Dr. Henry Ferrell is associate director of the institute. 

On February 13 Dr. Richard C. Todd spoke on "Nathanael Greene" to 
The Major Benjamin May Chapter of Daughters of the American Revolu- 
tion. Dr. George Pasti's article "Comparative Studies of East Asian and 
Western History: Some Topics and Problems," appeared in Comparative 
Studies in Society and History, October, 1964. Dr. Albert Diket wrote an 
article entitled, "John Slidell and the 'Chicago Incident 7 of 1858," which 
was published in Louisiana History, Summer, 1964. 

Dr. Sarah M. Lemmon, chairman of the Department of History and 
Political Science at Meredith College, reports that Mr. Thomas C. Parra- 
more and Mrs. Rosalie Prince Gates have been promoted to Assistant 

Meredith College will have two representatives in the Social Science Con- 
ference at Mars Hill College March 12-13. Dr. Frank Grubbs will speak on 
"An Evaluative of Samuel Gompers as a War-Time Leader," and Dr. 
Sarah Lemmon will speak on "The Relationship of Geography to Ancient 
Egyptian Art," and will also moderate a panel discussion on "The Fresh- 
man Survey Course : Problems and Suggestions for Improvements." 


The Roanoke Island Historical Association opened the sessions of Cul- 
ture Week, December 2, with a luncheon at the Hotel Sir Walter in Raleigh. 
Mrs. Fred W. Morrison, Washington, D. C, chairman, presided. Other 
officers are Mrs. J. E. Winslow, Hertford, vice-chairman; Mrs. Burwell 
Evans, Manteo, secretary; Mr. Chauncy S. Meekins, Manteo, treasurer; 
Mr. Martin Kellogg, Jr., Manteo, general counsel; Mr. William S. Powell, 
Chapel Hill, historian. Mr. John W. Fox, Manteo, general manager of 
"The Lost Colony," gave a report on the 1964 season. A $1,000,000 con- 
struction program for historic Fort Raleigh on Roanoke Island was out- 
lined by Mr. Karl T. Gilbert, superintendent of Cape Hatteras National 
Seashore Park. The project included a visitor center, an administration 
building, a utility area, quarters for employees, and a rehearsal center for 

266 The North Carolina Historical Review 

"The Lost Colony." These improvements were made possible through the 
acquisition and donation of about 135 acres of land by the Roanoke Island 
Historical Association, two anonymous donors, and the State of North 

On December 2 the thirty-eighth annual meeting of the North Carolina 
State Art Society was held in Raleigh. The following officers and board 
members were elected: Mrs. George W. Paschal, Jr., Raleigh, president; 
Mrs. Cyrus D. Hogue, Jr., vice-president; Mr. Charles Lee Smith, Raleigh, 
secretary; Mr. Otto Festmann, Asheville, Mr. Cyrus D. Hogue, Wilming- 
ton, and Mrs. Louis V. Sutton, Raleigh, board members. Plans were 
announced for the 1965 Cultural Arts Tour in the spring. The evening 
address was given by Mr. Leslie Cheek, Director, Virginia Museum of 
Fine Arts. Winners of the 1964 North Carolina Artists' Annual Exhibition 
were announced at the evening session. Mr. George Bireline, associate pro- 
fessor of design at North Carolina State of The University of North Caro- 
lina at Raleigh, won the first prize of $1,000 with a large oil painting, "Red 
Shift." He also won the $750 North Carolina State Harrelson Fund Award 
with another large canvas, "Colossus.' ' Other awards went to Miss Thelma 
Bennett, Winston-Salem, a woodcut, Mr. Morris Parker, Raleigh, a steel 
construction, and Mr. Robert Partin, Greensboro, a lithograph pencil draw- 
ing. Following the meeting a reception and a preview of the Exhibition for 
artists, members, and guests were held at the Museum of Art. 

The Associated Artists of North Carolina held a subscription dinner 
December 2 in Raleigh. The officers are Mrs. Peter W. Hairston, Advance, 
president; Mr. Ogden Deal, McLeansville, vice-president; Mrs. James 
Ficklen, Greenville, secretary; Mrs. Jean Fonville, Charlotte, treasurer; 
Mr. Eugene Messick, Raleigh, executive secretary. 

The eighth annual Music Day, sponsored by the North Carolina Feder- 
ation of Music Clubs was held December 2 in Raleigh. Officers are Mrs. 
Arvids Snornieks, New Bern, president; Mrs. Louise Y. Workman, Char- 
lotte, Mrs. Mahlon 0. Board, Greensboro, Mrs. Frank M. Sinclair, Char- 
lotte, vice-presidents; Miss Jessie Ross Morris, Charlotte, and Miss 
Kathryne D. Suter, New Bern, secretaries; and Mrs. Ray Holshouser, 
Kannapolis, treasurer. The afternoon concert featured Mr. Rex Cooper, 
junior pianist, Raleigh; Mr. Michael Kelly, student pianist, The University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ; and the Opera Theatre of The University 
of North Carolina at Greensboro, directed by Mr. Paul Hickfang. Dr. Lee 
Rigsby, Dean of Music at The University of North Carolina at Greens- 
boro, spoke at the dinner meeting. Winners in the 1964 composers con- 
test sponsored by the North Carolina Federation of Music were announced 
by Mrs. David B. Sutton. Mr. Lee Reynolds of St. Pauls won first place 
for "Overture for Band." His tone poem, "Four Days," based on the 
assassination of President Kennedy, won honorable mention. Other win- 
ners were: vocal division, professional class, Mrs. William H. Jordan of 
Greensboro, accompanist and church organist; vocal division, amateur 
class, Mrs. E. V. Williams, Jr., Asheboro piano teacher. A musical pro- 

Historical News 267 

gram was given by the Duke University Music Department under the 
direction of Mr. Allan Bone. The evening program was presented by 
the Concert Choir of East Carolina College under the direction of Mr. 
Charles Stevens, and the North Carolina State Ballet directed by Mr. 
John Lehman. 

The North Carolina Society for the Preservation of Antiquities held its 
twenty-fourth annual meeting in Raleigh December 3. The following 
officers were elected : Mrs. Horace P. Robinson of Littleton, president ; Mr. 
Henry J. McMillan, Wilmington, vice-president ; and Mrs. Ernest Branch, 
Raleigh, secretary-treasurer. Congressional district vice-presidents elected 
are: Mr. Edmund Harding, Washington; Mrs. Elias Carr, Macclesfield; 
Mr. John R. Taylor, New Bern; Mrs. Charles Lee Smith, Raleigh; Mr. 
Ralph P. Hanes, Winston-Salem ; Mr. Robert H. Frazier, Greensboro ; Mr. 
Chatham C. Clark, Elizabethtown ; Mrs. Ernest Ives, Southern Pines ; Mrs. 
E. M. Land, Statesville; Mrs. J. D. Lineberger, Shelby; and Mrs. N. D. 
Angier, Flat Rock. Reports on Preservation Projects were given as fol- 
lows: Old Stone House, Mr. E. L. Hardin, Salisbury; Cupola House, Mr. 
David M. Warren, Edenton; Historic Hillsborough, Mrs. Alfred G. Eng- 
strom, Hillsboro; "Fort Defiance," Miss Mary Maynard, Lenoir; The Car- 
son House and Old Fort, Miss Mary M. Greenlee, Old Fort ; Historic Hali- 
fax, Mr. Ray S. Wilkinson, Raleigh ; Historic Beaufort, Dr. John Costlow, 
Beaufort ; Historic Swannsboro, the Reverend Tucker R. Littleton, Swans- 
boro; Harmony Hall, Mr. Chatham Clark, Elizabethtown; Bethabara, Mr. 
Stanley A. South, Wilmington. 

Mr. Henry N. Flynt, president of the Heritage Foundation at Deerfield, 
Massachusetts, re-created with slides and commentary an early New Eng- 
land community for the afternoon meeting of the society. The society has 
received a $100,000 grant from the Richardson Foundation of Greensboro 
and New York. To qualify for money from the grant, communities will be 
required to advance local funds on a matching basis. 

The Charles A. Cannon Awards, presented annually by Mrs. Charles 
A. Cannon, Concord, were given at the evening meeting to the following 
persons for their contributions in the historical field: Mr. Ernest L. 
Hardin, Salisbury, for preservation of the Old Stone House, 1766, at 
Granite Quarry in Rowan County ; State Senator P. D. Midgett, Jr., Engle- 
hard, president of the Coastal Historyland Association, for work with 
East Coast historic sites ; Mr. Gordon Gray, Winston-Salem and Washing- 
ton, D. C, for his achievements as president of the National Trust 
for Historic Preservation, and for his assistance to Old Salem; Miss 
Elizabeth D. Home, Wadesboro, for work toward restoration of Tryon 
Palace. Other features of the evening session were the color films, "Land 
of Beginnings," which features tours of North Carolina's Coastal History- 
land, and "Mirror of the Past," a visit to Tryon Palace. Both films were 
made by the North Carolina Film Board. A reception for society members 
and their guests followed the night session. 

268 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The North Carolina Museums Council met December 3 at Raleigh. Dr. 
Charles H. Blake, president of the Hillsborough Historical Society, served 
as moderator of a panel discussion on "Governing Bodies and Supporting 
Groups of Museums." Mr. Robert B. Mayo, Exhibits Curator, moderated a 
panel discussion on "Methods, Techniques, and Materials of Museum 
Exhibit Programs," at the Exhibits Workshop, December 4. A slide pro- 
gram explained the Bentonville Battleground exhibits and other related 
exhibits. A discussion session followed. Officers are as follows : Mr. Frank 
Walsh, Raleigh, president; Mr. Bruce Black, Manteo, vice-president; Mrs. 
Joye E. Jordan, Raleigh, secretary-treasurer; Mr. Brad Hawkins, Greens- 
boro, Mr. Benny Keel, Chapel Hill, Mr. William L. Hamnett, Raleigh, and 
Robert Schlageter, Charlotte, members of the board of directors. 

The executive committee of the North Carolina Symphony Society held 
its annual dinner meeting at the Hotel Sir Walter in Raleigh, December 
3. The Reverend Charles Lynn Brown, president, presided. Other officers 
are: Mrs. Carl T. Durham, Chapel Hill, executive vice-president; Mr. 
Lester C. Gifford, Hickory, Mr. James McClure Clarke, Asheville, Mr. 
Voit Gilmore, Southern Pines, Mr. Jan P. Schinhan, Kannapolis, and Mr. 
William H. Westphal, Greensboro, vice-presidents ; Mr. William R. Cherry, 
Chapel Hill, secretary-treasurer; Mr. Benjamin F. Swalin, director. 

The sixty-fourth meeting of the North Carolina Literary and Historical 
Association was held in Raleigh December 4. The following officers and 
board members were elected: Mr. Glenn Tucker, Flat Rock, president; 
Dr. Paul Murray, Greenville, Professor Forrest W. Clonts, Winston-Salem, 
and Mr. Armistead Maupin, Raleigh, vice-presidents; Dr. Christopher 
Crittenden, Raleigh, secretary-treasurer; Mrs. E. R. McKethan, Fayette- 
ville, and Dean W. E. Byrd, Cullowhee, board members. Mr. H. C. Brad- 
shaw, Durham, reviewed North Carolina nonfiction of the year. A report 
on the Confederate Centennial Commission was given by Mr. Norman 
Larson, Executive Secretary. Dr. Vittorio Giannini, president of the North 
Carolina School of the Arts in Winston-Salem, spoke on "Arts for Tar 
Heels — A program for the Future." Dr. Paul Murray, presented the R. D. 
W. Connor award for the best article published in The North Carolina 
Review to Dr. Richard Bardolph, Greensboro, for his article "Inconstant 
Rebels: Desertion of North Carolina Troops in the Civil War," which 
appeared in the Spring, 1964, issue. 

Mr. W. S. Tarlton, Raleigh, council member of the American Association 
for State and Local History Awards, presented awards given by the associ- 
ation to North Carolinians. Receiving an award of merit as co-publisher 
of The American Drawings of John White, 1577-1590, was Mr. Lambert 
Davis, Chapel Hill, who accepted the award for The University of North 
Carolina Press. Certificates of commendation were persented to Mr. Hal 
Wilson, Washington, on behalf of station WITN for "Portrait of Bath 
Town," and to Mr. Ernie Greup, Durham, on behalf of station WTVD for 
"Durham Station." 

Historical News 269 

Mr. McDaniel Lewis, chairman of the executive board of the State 
Department of Archives and History, presented special awards to Mr. 
Norman Larson and Colonel Hugh Dortch for their work with the North 
Carolina Confederate Centennial Commission. Certificates were presented 
to all members of the commission and to its staff marking the completion 
of the extended observance of the Souths cause. 

Mrs. Ina W. Van Noppen presided at the luncheon meeting. Mr. John 
G. Barrett, Lexington, Virginia, spoke on "Sherman's March Through 
North Carolina." Mrs. Bernice Kelly Harris presented the 1964 Roanoke- 
Chowan Poetry Award to Mr. E. S. Gregg of Statesville for his volume, 
"Reap Silence." Mrs. E. J. Kratt of Charlotte presented the American 
Association of University Women Juvenile Literature Award to Mr. 
Randall Jarrell of Greensboro for "The Bat-Poet." Secretary of State 
Thad Eure presented the Tar Heel Junior Historical Association awards to 
the following: arts division, Gaston Spindles, Junior Historian Club of 
Robinson School, Gastonia; literary division, group winner, Stephen 
Cabarrus Club of Harrisburg School; individual award, Miss Betty Lou 
Howell, Seaboard High School. 

Mr. Ovid W. Pierce, well-known novelist and member of the faculty at 
East Carolina College, Greenville, presided at the dinner meeting. Dr. 
James W. Patton, Chapel Hill, gave the presidential address entitled 
"Serious Reading in Halifax County, 1860-1865." 

Dr. Patton presided at the evening meeting at which Dr. George V. 
Taylor, Jr., Chapel Hill, spoke on "History, Literature, and The Public 
At Large." 

Dr. Sturgis E. Leavitt, Chapel Hill, presented to Mr. Glenn C. Tucker, 
Flat Rock, the Mayflower Cup for Daiun Like Thunder, a history of the 
war between the United States and the Barbary Powers of North Africa 
during the Jefferson and Madison administrations. The award for non- 
fiction is sponsored by the Society of Mayflower Descendants in the State 
of North Carolina. Miss Clara Booth Byrd, Greensboro, presented the Sir 
Walter Raleigh Award to Mr. John Ehle of Chapel Hill and New York for 
The Land Breakers, a novel dealing with pioneer living in North Carolina's 
mountains before the Revolutionary War. This award is made annually 
by the Historical Book Club of Greensboro for the best book of fiction 
published during the year. 

Following the evening session, a reception was held for members and 
their guests. 

The fifty-third annual session of the North Carolina Folklore Society 
was held in Raleigh December 4 with Dr. Holgar 0. Nygard, Durham, 
presiding. Other officers are Dr. Guy Owen, Jr., Raleigh, Mr. Jan Schinhan, 
Kannapolis, and Professor Robert A. Woody, Durham, vice-presidents ; and 
Dr. Daniel W. Patterson, Chapel Hill, secretary-treasurer. Professor 

270 The North Carolina Historical Review 

George P. Wilson, Greensboro, spoke on "Shakespeare and North Carolina 
Folklore." "Using North Carolina Folklore in Fiction" was the title of a 
paper by Dr. Guy Owen, Jr. Messrs. Jeff and Gerret Warner, singers of 
Duke University, gave a program of "Ballads and Blues." 

On December 5 the Society of Mayflower Descendents in the State of 
North Carolina held its annual breakfast honoring the society's officers 
and the winner of the Mayflower Award, Mr. Glenn C. Tucker. Officers 
are as follows: Dr. Sturgis E. Leavitt, Chapel Hill, Governor; Mrs. Wil- 
liam T. Powell, High Point, Deputy Governor; Mrs. William 0. Crottes, 
Charlotte, secretary; Mr. Dumont Clarke, Jr., Asheville, treasurer. 

Mr. H. Glen Lanier, High Point, presided at the annual meeting of the 
North Carolina Poetry Society December 5 in Raleigh. Other officers are 
Mrs. Sallie Nixon, Stanley, vice-president; Mrs. Joy D. Rorie, Charlotte, 
secretary; and Mrs. Mary Louise Medley, Wadesboro, treasurer. Read- 
ings of winning poems in the North Carolina Poetry Society Contest 
(1964) were heard. Miss Charlotte Young gave a report on the work of 
the Poetry Council of North Carolina; introduced Mr. E. S. Gregg of 
Statesville, winner of the 1964 Roanoke-Chowan Poetry Award ; and pre- 
sented the Oscar A. Young Memorial Cup to Dr. Victor B. Small, Clinton, 
for his book, The Feel of the Earth. 

The twenty-third annual meeting of the North Carolina Society of 
County and Local Historians was held in Raleigh December 5, with Mr. 
John H. McPhaul, Jr., presiding. Mr. Charles Dunn, Durham, made the 
presentation of the Smithwick Newspaper Award to Mr. F. C. Salisbury, 
Morehead City, for the history of the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Mr. 
Salisbury had won the award two times previously and had received 
honorable mention on four earlier occasions. (Word has been received of 
the death of Mr. Salisbury, December 24, 1964, at Morehead City.) Other 
winners were Dr. Ralph Hardee Rives, East Carolina College, Greenville, 
for an article on Panacea Springs, and Mrs. Margaret McMahan, Fayette- 
ville, for two articles, "The Hales' Effect on Journalism in North Carolina." 
Honorable mentions went to Mr. Lewis Philip Hall, Wilmington, and Mrs. 
Barbara Short, Durham. 

Mrs. Ethel Stephens Arnett, Greensboro, spoke on "The Last Days of 
the Confederacy." Mr. Edwin Dougherty, Boone, was elected president 
and Miss Mary Louise Medley, Wadesboro, and Miss Lena May Williams, 
Chapel Hill, were re-elected vice-presidents. 

Mr. John H. McPhaul, Jr., presided at the joint luncheon of the society 
and the North Carolina Poetry Society. Mrs. John A. Kellenberger, Greens- 
boro, chairman of the Tryon Palace Commission, gave a slide program on 
the palace as the concluding event of Culture Week. 

The Beaufort Historical Association met at St. Paul's parish house 
November 30 and was presided over by Dr. John Costlow, president. 

Historical News 271 

Reports were given by committee chairmen. Mrs. William Williams, Beau- 
fort, spoke on early American silver and displayed her collection. 

The executive committee of the North Carolina Conference Historical 
Society met November 24 at Saint James Methodist Church to plan a 
commemorative service which was held at 3:30 P.M., Sunday, December 
20, at the Whitakers Chapel Methodist Church near Enfield. Whitakers 
Chapel was the site of the first annual conference of the dissident Methodist 
Protestant Church which convened December 10-20, 1828. Bishop Paul N. 
Garber, resident Episcopal head of the Raleigh area of the Methodist 
Church, and one of Methodism's historians, was the speaker for the 
historical observance. 

The Moore County Historical Association met November 24 at Southern 
Pines. Reports were given on the repairs of the Alston House; on the 
House in the Horseshoe, near Carbonton; and on the old Shaw House in 
Southern Pines. The Highland Flingers from a Fayetteville high school 
gave a program. Mrs. Pat Raney announced an antique show for March 
24, 25, and 26. 

Two local historical projects — to restore the birthplace of Dr. Hugh 
Bennett and to restore and preserve the Patrick Boggan home on East 
Wade Street in Wadesboro, have been merged under the title of Anson 
County Historical Society. The committee designated to prepare a certifi- 
cate of incorporation for Anson County Historical Society is Mr. F. Fetzer 
Mill, chairman, Mr. L . P. McLendon, and Mr. M. D. McLendon. 

The newly-formed Franklin County Historical Society met January 21, 
at Louisburg College. Officers are as follows: Mr. Lindley S. Butler, 
Louisburg College, president ; Mr. T. H. Pearce, vice-president ; Miss Lucy 
P. Burt, secretary; and Mr. W. J. Shearin, treasurer. Dr. Gerald Shinn 
reported on the project to restore the Franklin Academy building, erected 
in 1804, for use as a county museum. 

The Chatham County Historical Society met November 30 at the court- 
house in Pittsboro. Mr. Charles R. Broyles spoke on "Indian Relics." 

The Rockingham County Historical Society met November 30 at the 
County Center. The following officers were elected: Mrs. S. R. Prince, 
president; Mr. Henry Anderson, Leaksville, and Mrs. W. T. Lauten, 
Madison, vice-presidents; Miss Nancy Withers, secretary; and Mr. Knox 
Lively, Sr., Reidsville, treasurer. Mr. Allan Lewis, Wentworth, who 
has served as president for the past several years, was named an honorary 
vice-president. Plans for the sponsorship of a tour of Rockingham County 
were discussed. Mrs. Claude Dunaway, president of the Fine Arts Festival 
Association, spoke on "Fine Arts and History." A historical category has 
been established in the Fine Arts Festival to be held in April at St. Luke's 
Episcopal Church at Spray. 

272 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The Gaston County Historical Society held its quarterly meeting 
December 4 at the Lion's Club Building in Gastonia. Mr. Benjamin 
Moomaw, director of the Kings Mountain National Military Park, spoke 
on the Battle of Kings Mountain. Mr. Brice T. Dickson is president of the 

Mrs. Douglas Wilkinson, member of the board of directors of the Rail- 
road House Historical Association, requests memorial gifts in addition 
to gifts of labor and materials by Sanf ord business firms for the restoration 
of the town's oldest residence. The authentically-furnished house will serve 
as a future office of the Sanf ord Chamber of Commerce and a meeting place 
for civic groups as well as a tourist attraction. 

The Hyde County Historical Association officers are Mrs. Allen Bucklew, 
president; Mrs. Robert G. Baum, vice-president; Mrs. Juanita Miller, 
secretary; Mrs. Betty Spencer, treasurer. 

The finance committee of the Haywood County Historical Society met 
in the historical room in the courthouse at Waynesville, December 8, to 
consider plans for construction or purchase of a museum for the society. 
Mr. Charles Woodard and Mr. Milton Brown are co-chairmen of the com- 

The Catawba County Historical Association met December 9 in the 
Community Room of Citizens Savings and Loan Association at Newton. 
The association accepted the offer of Mr. Charles C. C. Bost to purchase 
the old Rader homeplace lot on South College Avenue in Newton. Mr. 
Thomas Warlick, president, appointed a committee to investigate possible 
locations for a new, fireproof, historical museum for Catawba county. 

The Catawba County Historical Association met again on January 6, 
at which time Mr. Thomas Warlick, president, presided over the business 
meeting. A copy of Wheeler's History of North Carolina will be placed in 
the Catawba County Historical Museum as a memorial to Mrs. B, R. 
McCreight. Mr. Erskine C. Dysart of Hickory gave a talk about the early 
settlers of Catawba County. 

The Onslow County Historical Society met December 16 at the home of 
Miss Hathaway Price ; 12 members were present. At the meeting January 
20, in Richlands, Mrs. Collier Cobb gave a talk on American glass and 
displayed a portion of her collection. Mr. N. E. Day, president, presided 
over the business session. 

The Burke County Historical Society met December 21 at the Morganton- 
Burke Library. Mr. Sam J. Ervin III, president, presided over the business 
session. Members examined the collection of the society's historical material 
and saw a demonstration of new equipment. 

Historical News 273 

The Hillsborough Historical Society met January 15 at the Orange 
County Courthouse. Dr. Robert H. Woody, professor of history at Duke 
University, spoke on "Germans in North Carolina." 

The Wilkes Historical Society held its quarterly meeting January 18 
in the recreation room of Wilkesboro Baptist Church. Mr. T. E. Story, 
president, presided; a film entitled "Road to Carolina" was shown. 

The Union County Historical Society met January 14. Mr. S. Glenn Haw- 
field, president, presided and presented a suggested outline for a history of 
Union County. Mrs. Elizabeth W. Wilborn, staff historian of the State 
Department of Archives and History spoke about the writing of a county 

The Johnston County Historical Association met at Centenary Metho- 
dist Church in Smithfield January 17. Mr. Norman Larson of the Con- 
federate Centennial Commission outlined plans for the proposed centennial 
commemoration at Bentonville. 

A committee of the Asheville Chamber of Commerce has sponsored a 
project to incorporate the Museum of the Southern Highlands to preserve 
and display historical artifacts of the region, as well as to stimulate inter- 
est in the history and traditions of the area. At a meeting December 12 
the following officers were elected: Mr. George Coggins, president; Mr. 
Samuel Beck, vice-president in charge of the museum project; Miss 
Augusta Barnett, secretary; Mr. Norman A. Greig, treasurer. Directors 
include Mr. Carol White, Cherokee, Dr. W. D. Weatherford, Black Moun- 
tain, Mr. George M. Stephens, Sr., Mr. J. Nick Davis and Colonel Paul 
Rockwell, Asheville. 

The Cherokee County Historical Society and the Daughters of the 
American Revolution held a joint meeting January 14, at the Murphy 
Power Board building in Murphy. Reports were made by Mrs. Robert 
Easley, Mr. Joe Ray, and Mr. L. T. Block. 

The Lower Cape Fear Historical Society, Inc., of Wilmington, has issued 
its Fourth Handbook which features on the cover a photograph of the 
Latimer House. Current officers are Mr. N. Winfield Sapp, Jr., president; 
the Reverend Mortimer Glover, vice-president; Miss Leila Stack, secre- 
tary; Mr. Ludlow P. Strong, treasurer; and Mrs. Ida B. Kellam, archivist. 

Announcement has been made of the formation of The North Caro- 
lina Book, Map and Print Club. The club plans to issue a yearly bulletin 
listing the interests of the members and any items they would like to 
exchange. All persons who are interested in building personal collections 
and libraries of North Carolina books, prints, maps, and paintings may 
join by writing to The North Carolina Book, Map and Print Club, R. F. D., 
Box 30, Winnabow. 

274 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The Cabarrus County Historical Society had its organizational meeting 
January 28 at the Community Center in Concord. The following officers 
were elected: Mr. A. Campbell Cline, president; Mr. A. K. Rouse, Kan- 
napolis, and Mrs. Smoot Lyles, vice-presidents; Mrs. Harris Nierenburg, 
secretary-treasurer. One of the major long-range projects is the writing 
and publication of a history of Cabarrus County. Mr. Bernard Cruse spoke 
about the wealth of history in the county. 

The Wayne County Historical Society met at the Wayne County Court- 
house January 19. Mr. Conway Rose gave an illustrated talk on "The 
Tuscarora : a Close-up of Their Villages, Hunting Quarters and Habits." 

The Carteret County Historical Society met January 16 at the Webb 
Civic Center, Morehead City. Mr. Thomas Respess, secretary, presided 
over the business session and was elected treasurer to fill the unexpired 
term of the late F. C. Salisbury. A committee was appointed to draft a 
resolution in memory of Salisbury, a former president and charter mem- 
ber of the organization. Part of the tribute follows : "More than forty years 
ago he came among us, a stranger from northern New York. . . . His 
natural bent for history gradually concentrated on the annals of Carteret 
County . . . resulting in a wealth of authentic local history which otherwise 
might have remained unpublished." 

The Person County Historical Society met January 30 at the Court- 
house in Roxboro. The business session was followed by the election of 
new officers. 

The Pitt County Historical Society met January 28. Officers elected were 
Dr. Robert Lee Humber, president; Miss Tabitha DeVisconti, Farmville, 
vice-president; Mrs. W. I. Wooten, secretary-treasurer. Dr. Herbert R. 
Paschall spoke on colonial records and hailed John Simpson as the "father" 
of Pitt County, which was separated from the area then known as Beau- 
fort County. 

The Western North Carolina Historical Association met January 30 at 
Pack Memorial Library, Asheville. Officers elected were Mr. Glenn Tucker, 
Flat Rock, president; Mrs. Mary Jane McCrary, Brevard, vice-president; 
Miss Cordelia Camp, Asheville, secretary-treasurer. Several committee 
reports were heard. 


The Editorial Board of The North Carolina Historical Review is 
interested in articles and documents pertaining to the history of North 
Carolina and adjacent states. Articles on the history of other sections 
may be submitted, and, if there are ties with North Carolinians or 
events significant in the history of this state, the Editorial Board will 
give them careful consideration. Articles on any aspect of North Caro- 
lina history are suitable subject matter for The Review, but materials 
that are primarily genealogical are not accepted. 

In considering articles, the Editorial Board gives careful attention 
to the sources used, the form followed in the footnotes, and style in 
which the article is written, and the originality of the material and its 
interpretation. Clarity of thought and general interest of the article 
are of importance, though these two considerations would not, of 
course, outweigh inadequate use of sources, incomplete coverage of 
the subject, and inaccurate citations. 

Persons desiring to submit articles for The North Carolina Historical 
Review should request a copy of The Editors Handbook, which may 
be obtained free of charge from the Division of Publications of the De- 
partment of Archives and History. The Handbook contains informa- 
tion on footnote citations and other pertinent facts needed by writers 
for The Review. Each author should follow the suggestions made in 
The Editors Handbook and should use back issues of The North Caro- 
lina Historical Review as a further guide to the accepted style and 

All copy should be double-spaced; footnotes should be typed on 
separate sheets at the end of the article. The author should submit an 
original and a carbon copy of the article; he should retain a second 
carbon for his own reference. Articles accepted by the Editorial Board 
become the property of The North Carolina Historical Review and 
may not have been or be published elsewhere. The author should in- 
clude his professional title in the covering letter accompanying his 

Following acceptance of an article, publication will be scheduled in 
accordance with the established policy of the Editorial Board. Since 
usually a large backlog of material is on hand, there will ordinarily be 
a fairly long period between acceptance and publication. 

The editors are also interested in receiving for review books relating 
to the history of North Carolina and the surrounding area. 

Articles and books for review should be sent to the Division of 
Publications, State Department of Archives and History, Box 1881, 
Raleigh, North Carolina. 


-.47- 3 

North Carolina State Library, 

N. c 



The North Carolina Historical Review 

Christopher Crittenden, Editor in Chief 

Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor 
Mrs. Violet W. Quay, Editorial Associate 


John Fries Blair William S. Powell 

Miss Sarah M. Lemmon Miss Mattie Russell 

Henry S. Stroupe 


McDaniel Lewis, Chairman 

Miss Gertrude Sprague Carraway Ralph P. Hanes 

Robert F. Durden Josh L. Horne 

Fletcher M. Green Edward W. Phifer 

Christopher Crittenden, Director 

This review was established in January, 1924, as a medium of publication and dis- 
cussion of history in North Carolina. It is issued to other institutions by exchange, 
but to the general public by subscription only. The regular price is $4.00 per year. 
Members of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association, Inc., for which 
the annual dues are $5.00, receive this publication without further payment. Back 
numbers still in print are available for $1.00 per number. Out-of-print numbers may be 
obtained on microfilm from University Microfilms, SIS North First Street, Ann Arbor, 
Michigan. Persons desiring to quote from this publication may do so without special 
permission from the editors provided full credit is given to The North Carolina 
Historical Review. The Review is published quarterly by the State Department of 
Archives and History, Education Building, Corner of Edenton and Salisbury Streets, 
Raleigh. Second class postage paid at Raleigh, North Carolina. 

COVER— Fighting Cocks. Drawing by Gerald P. Finn, September 18, 
1947. Reproduced from the cover of Johnson's History of Game Strains 
with the permission of Mr. W. T. Johnson, Americus, Georgia. For article 
on cockfighting, see pp. 306-314. 

7^ %vtt& &wMi*ta 

Volume XLII Published in July, 1965 Number 3 


HIGH TIDE, 1925-1927 275 



James Roy Morrill III 


B. W. C. Roberts 


Paul V. Lutz 


Bruce L. Clayton 


Thomas C. Parramore 




Ramsey, Carolina Cradle: Settlement of the Northwest Carolina 

Frontier, 17 k7 -17 62, by John Edmond Gonzales 345 

Zuber, Jonathan Worth: A Biography of a Southern Unionist, 

by Charles P. Roland 346 

Porter, Trinity and Duke, 1892-1924: Foundations of Duke 

University, by Wesley H. Wallace 347 

Reynolds and Faunt, Biographical Directory of the Senate of South 

Carolina, 1776-1964, by Daniel M. McFarland 348 

Miller, Mr. Crump of Memphis, by James W. Patton 349 

Ribaut, The Whole & True Discouerye of Terra Florida, 

Giddings, The Exiles of Florida, 

Fuller, The Purchase of Florida: Its History and Diplomacy, 

"Rambler," Guide To Florida, by John J. TePaske 350 

Smith, Loyalists and Redcoats: A Study in British Revolutionary 

Policy, by Christopher Crittenden 352 

Sarles and Shedd, Colonials and Patriots: Historic Places 

Commemorating Our Forebears, 1700-1783, by Stanley Smith . . .353 
Knollenberg, George Washington: The Virginia Period, 1732-1775, 

by Gilbert L. Lycan 354 

Clark, Naval Documents of the Revolution, Volume I, 

by A. M. Patterson 355 

Brown, Baroness von Riedesel and the American Revolution: 

Journal and Correspondence of a Tour of Duty, 1776-1783, 

by John E. Selby 357 

PRUCHA, Guide to the Military Posts of the United States 1789-1895, 

by John D. F. Phillips 358 

Cave, Jacksonian Democracy and the Historians, by Edwin A. Miles . . 359 
Roland, Albert Sidney Johnston: Soldier of Three Republics, 

by Rembert W. Patrick 360 

Perry, Infernal Machines: The Story of Confederate Submarine and 

Mine Warfare, by James I. Robertson, Jr 362 

Rawley, The American Civil War: An English View, 

by John G. Barrett 363 

Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877, by Henry H. Simms . .364 
Rolle, A Century of Dishonor: The Early Crusade for Indian 

Reform, by Donald E. Worcester 365 

Dunn and Miller, Atlantic Hurricanes, by Beth G. Crabtree 366 

Link, Wilson: Confusions and Crises, 1915-1916, by George Osborn . .367 

Freidel, F.D.R. and the South, by Sarah McCulloh Lemmon 369 

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. 

Truman, Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and 

Statements of the President, January 1 to December 31, 

191,9, by Willard B. Gatewood, Jr 370 

Posner, American State Archives, by Clifford K. Shipton 371 

Other Recent Publications 374 



AT HIGH TIDE, 1925-1927 

By Willard B. Gate wood, Jr.* 

Few localities felt the impact of the socio-intellectual crosscurrents 
of the 1920's more acutely than North Carolina. In the phraseology 
of the times, the state was in the throes of "a new day," "a bloodless 
revolution," and "a new phase." Such terms attempted to indicate a 
complex of material and intellectual changes which converged upon 
the nation in the era after World War I. Some of the innovations 
sprang directly from the war; others were products of movements long 
in existence and brought to fruition by the war. Whatever the origins 
of the new environment, the average North Carolinian experienced 
a profound uneasiness in the presence of twentieth-century realities 
which he could no longer ignore or glimpse from a comfortable dis- 
tance. The passing of the old order sent a tremor through the state 
and occasionally induced spasms of popular disorientation which 
produced indiscriminate, almost blind, assaults upon phenomena as- 
sociated with the "new day." Since most North Carolinians viewed 
the world through the eyes of orthodox Protestant theology, no aspect 
of the post-war era disturbed them more than its secular and irreverent 
tone. Even the hallowed creeds "upon which men have staked their 
hopes of eternal salvation" came under fire. A predominantly rural 
people accustomed to theological certainties and steeped in individu- 
alistic piety contemplated such "unsettlement" as the work of dark, 
satanic forces. Anything less than the obliteration of ideas and con- 
cepts responsible for the "loosening of old restraints" would jeopardize 
North Carolina's status as a "Christian Commonwealth." When the 
theory of evolution came to be considered the most pervasively dan- 
gerous of these concepts, the zealous defenders of religious orthodoxy 
assumed the tactics of embattled, panic-stricken warriors making a 

* Dr. Gatewood is Professor of History at the University of Georgia. Research for 
this article was made possible by grants from the American Association for State and 
Local History and the American Philosophical Society. 

276 The North Carolina Historical Review 

last-ditch effort to save their historic faith from the onslaughts of 
infidels. 1 

The war on evolution erupted in 1920 when a Baptist paper in 
Kentucky published articles by T. T. Martin, a Mississippi evangelist, 
demanding the dismissal of President William Louis Poteat of Wake 
Forest College, because of his open espousal of the theory of evolu- 
tion. The Martin-Poteat affair precipitated far more than an agitation 
among Baptists. 2 It sparked a disturbance which increased in scope 
and intensity throughout the first half of the post-war decade. The 
"God-or-gorilla" theme became the subject of newspaper editorials, 
public debates, denominational squabbles, pronouncements by acad- 
emicians, Bible conferences and speeches by William Jennings Bryan. 
Many North Carolinians were first introduced to Charles Darwin and 
his theory by itinerant evangelists whose highly emotional sermons 
aroused widespread suspicions about the orthodoxy of the churches and 
the state-supported educational institutions. The specter of infidelity 
induced many citizens to join in a frantic search for means to insulate 
their religious certitude against the encroachments of "godless" science 
and "vague-minded" modernistic theology. Their first efforts aimed at 
the elimination of evolutionists from church-related colleges and the 
incorporation of Bible courses into the public school curriculum. In 
neither case was their success sufficient to guarantee the safety of their 
eternal verities. 3 

Religious fundamentalists were convinced that the decisive moment 
had arrived in 1925; North Carolina must either remain an "old- 
fashioned Christian Commonwealth" or succumb to the forces of the 

1 Gerald W. Johnson, "North Carolina in a New Phase," Current History, XXVII 
(March, 1928), 843-848; W. C. Jackson, "Culture and the New Era in North Carolina," 
The North Carolina Historical Review, II (January, 1925), 12-15; E. C. Brooks, "The 
Development of Social Harmony" (an address, 1927), Eugene C. Brooks Papers, 
Duke Manuscript Collection, Duke University, Durham; Journal of the North Carolina 
Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, November 19-24, 1919 
(Raleigh: Advocate Publishing Co., 1919), 55; Walter Lippman, "The South and the 
New Society," Social Forces, VI (September, 1927), 1-5; W. A. Harper, Character 
Building in Colleges (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1928), 190-191; Sylvester 
Hassell, Evolution (n.p., 1925), 1-3. 

2 See Suzanne C Linder, "William Louis Poteat and the Evolution Controversy," 
The North Carolina Historical Review, XL (April, 1963), 135-157, hereinafter cited as 
Linder, "Poteat and the Evolution Controversy." 

3 Gerald W. Johnson, "Saving Souls," The American Mercury, I (July, 1924) , 364- 
368; The News and Observer (Raleigh), June 15, 21, July 27, August 15, September 
13, 1921, February 24, November 19, 1922, May 6, November 6, 16, 1923, February 14, 
15, 20, 29, and March 14, 1924, hereinafter cited as The News and Observer; The 
North Carolina Lutheran, I (September, 1923), 4; Keith Saunders, The Independent 
Man (Raleigh: Edwards and Broughton, c. 1962), 188-204, hereinafter cited as 
Saunders, Independent Man; The Mission Herald, XXXIX (June, 1925), 8; Stephen 
Gardner to Robert Winston, December 5, 1924, Robert W. Winston Papers, Southern 
Historical Collection, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; The Goldsboro 
News, August 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 24, 25, 1926. 

The Fundamentalist Crusade 277 

antichrist. Encouraged by Governor Cameron Morrison's banning of 
two "evolution textbooks" in 1924, the defenders of orthodoxy launched 
their offensive to obliterate the Darwinian menace by statute. Their 
spokesman was D. Scott Poole, a newspaper editor and prominent 
Presbyterian layman, who represented Hoke County in the legislature. 
His antievolution bill reached a vote in the House of Representatives 
only after a prolonged series of heated debates and tedious parlia- 
mentary maneuvers. Amid frayed tempers and a near riot, the measure 
was defeated by a vote of 67 to 46. 4 

Scarcely had the House disposed of the measure when the anti- 
evolutionists served notice that they would return for a showdown 
in the legislative session of 1927. They immediately reorganized 
their forces and quickened the tempo of their agitation. The death 
of Bryan shortly after the Scopes trial in 1925 provided them a 
martyr and renewed their zeal for the cause that he championed. Their 
crusade ultimately won endorsement from the Junior Order of Me- 
chanics, the State Convention of the American Federation of Labor, 
the Methodist Protestant Church, the Free Will Baptists, chambers 
of commerce, parent-teacher associations, and local chapters of the 
Ku Klux Klan. Local boards of education sought to guarantee the 
moral purity of public schools under their jurisdiction by the introduc- 
tion of Bible courses, the elimination of "evolutionary teachings," and 
the censorship of school libraries. A favorite target of the anti- 
evolutionist offensive was The University of North Carolina. Even 
the martyred Bryan had referred to the institution as a breeding 
ground of infidelity in his last, undelivered address at Dayton. Harry 
W. Chase, the Massachusetts-born president of the university, had 
incurred the wrath of the fundamentalists by his vocal opposition to 
the Poole Bill. Condemned as a "Damned Yankee" and "a homeless 
liberal" who was "ruinin' our boys," the harassed Chase seriously con- 
sidered resigning his post because of the ferocious attacks upon him. 5 

4 See especially Edgar W. Knight, "Monkey or Mud in North Carolina," The 
Independent, CXVII (May 14, 1927), 515-516, 527; Maynard Shipley, The War on 
Modern Science: A Short History of the Fundamentalist Attacks on Evolution and 
Modernism (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1927), 87-110, hereinafter cited as Shipley, 
The War on Modern Science. 

6 Nell Battle Lewis, "North Carolina," The American Mercury, VIII (May, 1926), 
41-43; Minutes of the Thirty-First Annual Session of the Eastern Convention of the 
Original Free Will Baptists, 1926 (n.p., 1926), 5; Journal of the North Carolina 
Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church, 1925 (n.p., 1925), 34, 47, 92; The 
Statesville Landmark, August 12, 1926; The Mooresville Enterprise, August 20, 1925; 
The Union Republican (Winston), July 23, 1925; The Durham Morning Herald, May 
26, 1925; Howard K. Beale, Are American Teachers Free? An Analysis of Restraints 
Upon the Freedom of Teaching in American Schools (New York: Charles Scribner's 
Sons [1936]), 229; Louis Round Wilson, The University of North Carolina, 1900-1930: 
The Making of a Modern University (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina 
Press, 1957), 511-526. 

278 The North Carolina Historical Review 

By the close of 1925 the antievolutionists could claim several sig- 
nificant achievements in spite of their failure in the legislature of that 
year. Morrison's elimination of certain textbooks, the actions of local 
school boards, and the agitation within several major denominations 
went far toward accomplishing the aim implicit in a state-wide anti- 
evolution law. Yet, opponents of evolution continued to insist upon such 
legislation as a prerequisite for the return of godliness. Poole had al- 
ready indicated his intention to renew the fight in 1927; and Zebulon 
Vance Turlington, a prominent Presbyterian and an influential Demo- 
cratic legislator from Iredell County who championed Poole's bill, an- 
nounced in August, 1925, his willingness to exert even greater effort 
now that he understood "the full gravity of the situation." 6 

By February, 1926, various rumors about an impending antievolution 
crusade began to take shape. L. D. Bass, a Baptist minister in Madison, 
predicted that "some of the biggest anti-evolution guns in the country" 
including John Roach Straton, William B. Riley, and T. T. Martin, 
would invade the state during the spring and summer to give the 
"liberals and modernists a thorough shelling." During the Scopes trial 
Martin, field secretary of the Anti-Evolution League of America, had 
announced that his organization would "move in on North Carolina 
next." From Washington, Jonathan Daniels of The News and Observer 
reported rumors to the effect that North Carolina fundamentalists 
were perfecting their organization for the purpose of forcing an anti- 
evolution plank into the platform of the state's Democratic party. He 
also claimed that, according to some sources, former Governor Morri- 
son would spearhead the crusade. While none of these rumors was 
completely true, widespread circulation indicated that something 
was in the wind. 7 

The fundamentalists believed that the most propitious moment to 
launch their new campaign for an antievolution statute was the period 
immediately prior to the Democratic primaries early in June. Victory 
in the primary was tantamount to election in solidly Democratic 
North Carolina; therefore, the antievolutionists had to initiate their 
crusade in time to force the hands of the candidates for the legislature 
on the evolution question during their campaigns. Their aims were to 
make evolution the central issue of the campaigns and to elect enough 
legislators sympathetic to their cause to insure the passage of a bill 

6 The Mooresville Enterprise, August 20, 1925; The Greensboro Daily News, August 
16, 1925; The News and Observer, August 16, 1925; Charity and Children, XL (August 
27, 1925), 4. 

7 The News and Observer, February 21, April 25, 1926; The North Carolina Lutheran, 
III (December, 1925), 4. 

The Fundamentalist Crusade 279 

outlawing Darwinism in the schools. Politicians who had previously 
shied away from the issue because of its explosive nature contemplated 
the revived antievolution crusade with mounting anxiety. Many of 
them perceived only too clearly the validity of the observation: "If 
a candidate comes out for the teaching of evolution, he wouldn't have 
as much chance as a Catholic." Since the fundamentalist zealots 
brooked neither ambiguities nor equivocation, the political moderate 
might well expect to be the "chief sufferer" in the campaign. 8 

The first steps toward the creation of a state-wide antievolution 
organization took place secretly early in April, 1926. Public notice of 
these efforts first occurred on April 16, when 32 ministers and laymen 
representing various denominations met in the First Baptist Church 
of Charlotte. Their announced purpose was to launch an organization 
to combat "all influences in the schools that tend to destroy the faith 
of the people in the Bible as the Inspired Word of God." The organiza- 
tion, known as the Committee of One Hundred, would be under the 
direction of native fundamentalists representing the 100 counties of 
the state. The group also passed resolutions expressing its opposition 
to the union of church and state and its endorsement of all efforts 
to eliminate antichristian doctrines from the public schools. By the 
close of this session it was apparent that Presbyterians, primarily from 
the Piedmont region, would dominate the new campaign and that 
Charlotte would be its headquarters. 9 

On May 4, 1926, the same day that the Episcopalians officially de- 
nounced efforts to restrict freedom of teaching, over 300 antievolu- 
tionists gathered in Charlotte "to fight the teaching of anti-Bible doc- 
trines in the schools." When the Chamber of Commerce denied this 
group use of its building on grounds of "propriety," the gathering 
convened in the auditorium of the Carnegie Library where, after 
singing "How Firm a Foundation," it officially launched the Commit- 
tee of One Hundred. The crusade to marshal the antievolution senti- 
ment in the counties was to be waged under the motto, "Make Our 
Schools Safe For Our Children." Shortly after his election as perma- 
nent chairman, Judge Walter S. Neal of Laurinburg assured the 
audience: "We are going to organize the state from stem to stern and 
anyone who thinks otherwise is badly fooled. Sentiment is against us 
in some of the large towns but in the rural sections it is all the way 
and we are going to organize every county and stir them up.' 


8 The News and Observer, April 25, 1926. 

9 The Charlotte Observer, April 17, 1926; The News and Observer, April 17, 1926 
The Statesville Landmark, April 22, 1926; The Goldsboro News, April 17, 1926. 

10 The News and Observer, May 6, 1926. 

280 The North Carolina Historical Review 

After transferring its proceedings to the more spacious quarters of 
the Second Presbyterian Church, the committee drew up a funda- 
mentalist credo which was incorporated into the organization's lengthy 
platform. This document disavowed any intention of uniting church 
and state, then proceeded to insist upon barring from all public 
educational institutions teachers whose religious beliefs deviated sub- 
stantially from the conservative theology embraced by a majority of 
the Christian taxpayers of the state. This so-called "moral suasion" 
platform was designed to serve as a basis for a "direct treaty" to be 
negotiated by the committee with each state-supported college. If the 
college refused to accept this procedure or failed to react "properly," 
the committee promised "to take the matter directly to the legislature." 
Obviously, the organization intended to concern itself primarily with 
the state colleges rather than the public schools. Perhaps the latter 
had been, or were being, sufficiently cleansed of the heresy by the 
local activities of the antievolutionists. At any rate, the committee 
hoped to force colleges in line by threatening another legislative fight 
over evolution. 11 

Despite its threat and promises, the Committee of One Hundred 
was premanently injured by the intemperance and disorder of its 
opening session. The wild applause, inflammatory addresses, and 
vitriolic attacks upon Chase and other university personnel precluded 
calm deliberations. So unbridled did the language become that the 
chairman had to remind the orators that they were "in a house of God." 
The proceedings, however, became utterly rowdy when a group of 
self-styled "friends of the University" invaded the fundamentalist 
gathering. The leader of this contingent of "interlopers" was Charles 
W. Tillett, Jr., a young attorney of Charlotte, who had persuaded 
several civic leaders in various parts of the state to join him in an 
effort to stifle in its infancy this new antievolution drive. While the 
resolutions committee was in session elsewhere, the floor was opened 
for general discussion. Robert Lassiter, one of Tillett's cohorts, im- 
mediately raised the question whether all those present would enjoy 
the privileges of the floor. After some hesitation the chairman agreed 
to extend the rights of voting and speaking to all present, an action 
which gave Tillett and his associates legal standing in the session. 
During the lunch hour this group which then included E. D. Broad- 
hurst, a Greensboro attorney and an outspoken critic of antievolution 

11 The Charlotte Observer, May 4, 5, 1926; The News and Observer , May 5, 6, 7, 
1926; The Greensboro Daily News, May 5, 6, 7, 1926. 

The Fundamentalist Crusade 281 

legislation, plotted its strategy for a showdown with the fundamenta- 
lists at the afternoon session. 12 

The proceedings during the afternoon were marked by a mounting 
resentment of the intruders, flaring tempers, and angry outbursts. 
When Tillett criticized efforts by churchmen to gag scientific research, 
H. B. Searight, moderator of the Presbyterian Synod, suggested that 
"those who are not in sympathy with us might go elsewhere and form 
an organization of their own." But William Shaw, Paul Ranson, Frank 
McNinch, and William T. Shore, all civic leaders and university 
alumni, remained to pose embarrassing questions and to engage in 
heated exchanges with official spokesmen of the committee. Shaw 
described the "absurdity" of any effort to make orthodox Christianity 
a test for membership in a state college faculty. He reminded his 
audience that such a restriction would automatically eliminate all 
Jews and Catholics from state-supported institutions. Thomas R. 
Glasgow, a Charlotte businessman who had joined Tillett's group, 
continued the discussion by a critical analysis of the committee's 
attempt to "make a religious creed a prerequisite for holding a civil 
office." 13 

These remarks triggered a general uproar among the antievolution- 
ists who, disagreeing among themselves over the interpretations of 
their ultimate aims, were soon absorbed in bitter arguments with 
one another. E. D. Broadhurst finally managed to gain the floor to 
deliver a brief speech which reduced the proceedings to utter pande- 
monium. He claimed that the "bitter-tongued" utterances of the 
ministers during the session were sufficient to destroy the layman's 
respect and reverence for the clergy. Then, he concluded: "Don't make 
this a church war. You are a lot of scared preachers gathered together. 
I've listened to your voices and seen your actions today and I tell you 
I'm discouraged." 14 At this juncture, the Reverend McKendree Long, 
a Presbyterian preacher, exclaimed: "My God shall not be murdered in 
His own House!" And Walter West, a young, broad-shouldered 
Methodist minister from Lincolnton, took off his coat, doubled up his 
fists, and charged toward the altar to deal with "this modernist inter- 
loper from Greensboro." Only the restraining hands of several specta- 
tors prevented a fist fight at the church altar. This extraordinary 

12 Robert W. Winston, Horace Williams: Gadfly of Chapel Hill (Chapel Hill: The 
University of North Carolina Press, 1942), 211-213, hereinafter cited as Winston, 
Horace Williams; The Charlotte Observer, May 5, 6, 7, 1926; The Greensboro Daily 
News, May 5, 6, 7, 1926; The Statesville Landmark, May 6, 10, 1926. 

13 The Charlotte Observer, May 5, 6, 1926; The Goldsboro News, May 5, 1926; The 
Greensboro Daily News, May 5, 6, 1926. 

14 Quoted in Shipley, The War on Modern Science, 102. 

282 The North Carolina Historical Review 

episode climaxed the meeting and overshadowed the remainder of the 
session. The unfavorable publicity given the initial meeting of the 
Committee of One Hundred irreparably damaged its reputation and 
lent credence to the prediction that North Carolina was destined for 
a"Kulturkampf." 15 

At the same time that native fundamentalists were organizing the 
the Committee of One Hundred, outside forces poured into the state 
to lend their aid to the antievolution cause. True to his promise during 
the Scopes trial, T. T. Martin headed this contingent of "foreign" anti- 
evolutionists who invaded North Carolina in the spring of 1926. Since 
the death of Bryan the national antievolution movement had lacked 
a single individual to fill the Great Commoner's position. But a leading 
contender for the Bryan mantle was Charles F. Washburn, a wealthy 
realtor in Florida and the founder of the Bible Crusaders of America. 
Established to continue Bryan's antievolutionist crusade, it rapidly 
became one of the most militant organizations of its kind. Its personnel 
consisted largely of veteran fundamentalist campaigners such as T. T. 
Martin who became Director-General of Campaigns of the Bible 
Crusaders while retaining his post in the Anti-Evolution League of 
America. 16 

Fresh from the field of victory in his native Mississippi, which had 
enacted an antievolution law, Martin arrived in Charlotte on April 
28, 1926, and established headquarters in the Clayton Hotel. He im- 
mediately announced plans for a whirlwind campaign throughout 
North Carolina in an effort to pave the way for the passage of an anti- 
evolution statute by the next legislature. Martin and other representa- 
tives of national antievolution societies who joined him emphasized 
the crucial significance of the state in their nationwide campaign. "If 
North Carolina could be won," they reasoned, "the nation could be 
won" and federal legislation to banish Darwinism could be enacted. 17 

Both Martin and his chief lieutenant, V. T. Jeffreys of New Jersey 
who had been dispatched to Charlotte by the Anti-Evolution League, 
expressed a desire to work with the Committee of One Hundred. In 
fact, they hoped to co-ordinate the campaigns of the local and national 

15 Winston, Horace Williams, 214; The Charlotte Observer, May 5, 1926; The Greens- 
boro Daily News, May 6, 1926. 

16 The Crusaders' Champion, I (December 25, 1925), 1-4; The North Carolina 
Lutheran, III (December, 1925), 4; see also, Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist 
Controversy, 1918-1931 (New Haven, Connecticut: The Yale University Press, 1954), 

17 The Charlotte Observer, April 29, May 1, 1926; The Goldsboro News, April 29, 
1926. The battle cry of the Crusaders was: "North Carolina holds the key to the 
Nation. As it goes, so goes the nation." See Harbor Allen, "The Anti-Evolution 
Campaign in America," Current History, XXIV (September, 1926), 895. 

The Fundamentalist Crusade 283 

organizations. Martin exerted every effort to ingratiate himself with 
the committee by adjusting his own plans to coincide with those of the 
local organization. He conferred with A. R. Shaw, a Presbyterian 
minister prominent in the committee, but utterly failed to establish 
the desired contact. He did not even obtain an invitation to attend the 
committee's opening session on May 4. Reasons for the committee's 
coolness toward Martin are not difficult to find. In addition to being 
suspicious of "foreigners" in general, the committee undoubtedly rea- 
lized that Martin's rather notorious reputation among North Caro- 
linians because of his vicious war on William Louis Poteat would 
scarcely enhance its cause. Moreover, since the organization was seek- 
ing to influence a state election, aid from outside forces would be a 
liability rather than an asset. Thus the committee sought desperately, 
although in vain, to prevent any identification of its crusade with that 
of the Martin entourage. 18 

Although disappointed by the committee's attitude, Martin pro- 
ceeded with his plans for a state-wide campaign under the direction 
of representatives from various national antievolution groups. Like a 
military general about to launch an offensive, he divided the state 
into districts and designated one or more of his lieutenants to super- 
vise the campaign in each district. District headquarters were main- 
tained in Charlotte, Hendersonville, Winston-Salem, and Raleigh. 
Among the most notable members of Martin's task force were Andrew 
Johnson of Kentucky, Jeffreys, and three Texas evangelists, Raleigh 
Wright, J. F. Hailey, and W. E. Hawkins. The essential task of these 
district commanders was to arrange public debates on evolution, dis- 
tribute antievolution posters and literature, and organize local anti- 
evolution societies to be affiliated with a national organization. 19 

Martin sounded the keynote of his campaign in a well-advertized 
address delivered in Charlotte May 9, 1926. A massive, flag-draped 
portrait of Bryan filled the rear of the stage from which he spoke. His 
address, characterized by invective and sensationalism, was largely 
a reiteration of antievolution themes which he had expressed on many 
earlier occasions, especially in his tract, Hell and the High Schools. 
At one dramatic point in his speech Martin declared: "Our only hope 
is to carry the fight to the people and drive every evolution teacher 
and every evolution book out of every tax-supported school in 
America." As he closed his address, he pointed to the picture of Bryan 

18 The Greensboro Daily News, May 3, 1926; The News and Observer, April 29, 1926; 
The Charlotte Observer, April 29, May 1, 6, 1926. 

19 The Charlotte Observer, May 4, 6, 9, 1926; The Greensboro Daily News, May 3, 6, 
8, 1926. 

284 The North Carolina Historical Review 

and shouted: "There is the greatest statesman that was every draped 
with the American flag. The picture was taken while Mr. Bryan and 
I were at Dayton." The outburst of applause which followed was 
disproportionate to the small crowd that attended his performance. 20 

On May 12, 1926, the Anti-Evolution League of North Carolina, an 
affiliate of the national society of which Martin was field secretary, 
was incorporated by three North Carolinians. Two of the incorporators 
were citizens of Charlotte who had not previously been conspicuous 
in the antievolution agitation. The third, however, was James R. 
Pentuff, an active figure in the Committee of One Hundred and in the 
war on Poteat. Actually the antievolution league was controlled by 
Martin, but for purposes of publicity it was an organization of native 
vintage. It was a device to attract support among North Carolinians 
and to provide Martin with a liaison between outside and native 
fundamentalists. Apparently hoping to devote full time to league 
activities, Pentuff promised to publish a magazine, The Citizens 
Review, which would serve as the organ of the organization. Although 
subscriptions to the publication were sold at the rallies held by 
Martin's troupe, the magazine was never published. Subscriptions 
probably did not indicate success for such a venture. In fact, the anti- 
evolutionists found it increasingly difficult to arouse enthusiasm at 
their rallies, much less to raise cash. The size of the audiences, small 
from the beginning, continued to dwindle. On several occasions the 
crowd dispersed before the orators completed the addresses. 21 

This apathetic response prompted the World's Christian Fundamen- 
tals Association to dispatch Arthur I. Brown, a Canadian physician 
turned evangelist, to assist Martin. A veteran antievolutionist whose 
impressive academic pedigree received careful attention in Martin's 
publicity, Brown delivered addresses in various sections of the state. 
He assailed Poteat, proclaimed the "end of time was near at hand," 
and described all evolutionists as atheists. The Greensboro Daily News 
regretted that the Vancouver surgeon had "quit medical doctoring for 
divinity doseing." But even the hostile Daily News conceded that he 
possessed "far more sense, scholarship, personality, and platform 
ability than most of the agitators." Brown ultimately joined Martin's 

20 The Charlotte Observer, May 11, 1926; William N. Crow, "Religion and the Recent 
Evolution Controversy with Special Reference to the Issues in the Scopes Trial" (un- 
published Bachelor of Divinity thesis, Duke University, 1936), 69. 

21 The Hendersonville Times, May 5, 12, 1926; The News and Observer, May 10, 13, 
1926; The Evening Telegram (Rocky Mount), May 13, 1926; The Greensboro Daily 
News, May 12, 1926. 

The Fundamentalist Crusade 285 

headquarters in Charlotte in an effort to bolster the sagging fortunes 
of the crusade. 22 

It was left for Martin himself to stage the spectacle which pre- 
sumably would accomplish such ends. He announced his intention 
to debate evolution in public with some well-known atheist approved 
by the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism. H. L. 
Mencken was his choice of a protagonist, but when Mencken ignored 
his challenge, he agreed to debate with Howell S. England of Detroit, 
a representative of the association. No sooner had Martin made known 
his plan to stage such a debate than an avalanche of criticism de- 
scended upon him. City and county officials denied him use of 
facilities under their jurisdiction, and the Charlotte clergy closed the 
doors of their churches to him. The Charlotte chapter of the Ku Klux 
Klan vehemently opposed the presence of an atheist in their city and 
promised to give England "a quick send off" if he dared to contaminate 
its environs with his presence. 23 

Distressed by this unexpected turn of events, Martin claimed that 
his proposed debate had been "grossly misunderstood." He tried in 
vain to correct the widespread impression that the debate was to deal 
with "atheism versus Christianity" rather than Genesis versus Darwin. 
Apparently the Klan had misunderstood his purpose, and because of 
the misunderstanding, had decided to prohibit the debate in a manner 
comparable to Martin's proposed restrictions on evolutionists. Those 
who perceived the irony of Martin's complaints about the lack of 
respect for freedom of speech in Charlotte believed that the crusader 
had run afoul of the same kind of intolerance that he had so long 
preached. Certainly the Klan's argument that a "non-believer" should 
be prohibited from defiling their "church-going community" was 
similar to that employed by the evangelist against modernists and 
evolutionists. Martin, however, never appreciated the irony of his 
new role as a defender of "free speech." 24 

Finally, after two weeks of negotiations, he rented a dance pavilion 
located outside the city limits of Charlotte. Here, in such unimpressive 
surroundings, Martin and England staged their debate on May 31, 
1926. Their topic was: "Should the teaching of evolution, that man 
descended from a lower order of animals, be excluded from tax- 
supported schools." Taking the negative, England used a monkey 

22 The Raleigh Times, May 18, 1926; The News and Observer, May 18, 21, 1926; The 
Greensboro Daily News, May 16, 17, 24, 1926. 

23 The Mooresville Enterprise, October 29, 1925 ; The Charlotte Observer, May 23, 24, 
1926; The Greensboro Daily News, May 24, 1926. 

24 The Charlotte Observer, May 22, 23, 26, 1926. 

286 The North Carolina Historical Review 

named "Genesis" to illustrate his arguments; and Martin, in his turn, 
reached a new high in his use of invective against evolutionists. Al- 
though the debate possessed many features of the vaudeville per- 
formance, it was "a listless affair" attended by fewer than 200 people. 
The presence of the Klansmen hostile to an atheist being so near their 
city undoubtedly dampened the enthusiasm of many prospective 
curiosity-seekers. Disheartened by the series of disasters, climaxed in 
this debate, Martin withdrew from North Carolina deeply resentful of 
the "unfair" treatment accorded him. 25 

With his departure the burden of the fight fell to the Committee of 
One Hundred. But even the native fundamentalists were in serious 
trouble. The turbulence of the committee's original session had clearly 
taken its toll. Shocked by the unbecoming behavior of their cohorts, 
some of the most active and prestigious supporters began to desert the 
organization. A. A. McGeachy, a well-known Presbyterian clergyman 
whose church had been the scene of the stormy session, resigned im- 
mediately. Although he still agreed with the original aims of the com- 
mittee, he was "entirely out of sympathy with the spirit" in which it 
"was now attempting to accomplish them." 26 William E. Price, the 
first secretary-treasurer of the organization who was a candidate for the 
legislature, abandoned the committee before the primary; and the 
warm endorsement of the fundamentalist movement by Julian Miller 
in his Charlotte News turned into utter contempt following the tumul- 
tuous session of the committee on May 4. Other desertions took place 
within a few months, and even Judge Neal, ostensibly because of ill 
health, left the organization before the end of the year. 27 

Martin's sensational tactics and the fiasco of the committee's first 
session irreparably damaged the antievolution cause in North Carolina. 
Both shocked the sensibilities of North Carolinians in general and dis- 
illusioned many who still believed that evolution ought to be barred 
from the classroom. Few were willing to risk "the good name" of the 
state in a Scopes trial, and many were wearying of the whole discus- 
sion. Even The Charlotte Observer, one of the most persistent friends 
of fundamentalism, believed that the antievolution crusade under 
Martin had degenerated "into a cheap show of the common order." 

30 The Charlotte Observer, May 27, 30, June 2, 1926; The Greensboro Daily News, 
June 3, 1926. 

20 A. A. McGeachy to Howard W. Odum, May 8, 1926, Howard W. Odum Papers, 
Southern Historical Collection. 

27 The Greensboro Daily News, May 6, 1926; Winston, Horace Williams, 216; The 
Statesville Landmark, November 8, 1926; The News and Observer, May 9, 13, 14, 22, 
23, 1926. 

The Fundamentalist Crusade 287 

By June 2, 1926, The Observer had become convinced that the "state 
has had enough of this monkey business for quite a spell." 28 

For a while, however, the political campaigns prior to the primaries 
on June 5, 1926, failed to reflect this waning interest. The antievolu- 
tionists had entered the political arena with the avowed purpose of 
electing men to the legislature who sympathized with their aims. 
Although the State Democratic Convention late in April had been 
"the most pacific of gatherings" without a single reference to evolution, 
the politicians were by no means certain of such harmony in the pri- 
maries. Events during May indicated that their anxiety was justified. 
Charity and Children, sl Baptist paper, lamented: "Religion and poli- 
tics are mightily mixed these days. Preachers will take a larger part in 
the campaign than usual this season, and politicians will misquote 
more of the Bible than ever before." Most people agreed that evolution 
was an issue in the campaign, and some believed it was the "para- 
mount issue." The Greensboro Daily News was convinced that "the 
monkey had replaced the donkey in Tar Heel Democracy." Certainly 
the antievolutionists, especially the Committee of One Hundred, were 
urging all candidates for the legislature to state publicly their stand 
on the evolution question. The Stanly News-Herald (Albemarle), 
which urged its readers to "vote as you pray," maintained that such 
a declaration by the candidates was mandatory in view of the "vital 
issues" at stake in the evolution controversy. 29 

Candidates were by no means oblivious to these pressures, and in 
some contests the issue of evolution did indeed play a crucial role. D. 
Scott Poole, unopposed in the Hoke County primary, again assumed 
the lead in the matter of antievolution legislation by promising to in- 
troduce another bill in the next legislature. His announcement was 
the signal for candidates to align themselves on the issue. In Stanly 
County, where the local newspaper ardently championed an anti- 
evolution statute, the primary designated as the county's legislator, 
Luther H. Bost, a Methodist steward and chairman of the local board 
of education, who shared the editor's views. Richmond County was 
the scene of a particularly heated legislative race involving candidates 
for both the Senate and the House. After a bitter fight in which evolu- 
tion received a thorough airing on the political stump, the candidates 
who ran on the "Anti-Poole Bill Platform" were victorious. In Wilson 
County the Ku Klux Klan and antievolutionists tried in vain to unseat 

28 The Charlotte Observer, June 2, 1926. 

29 The News and Observer, April 28, 30, 1926; Charity and Children, XL (June 3, 
1926), 4; The Greensboro Daily News, June 4, 8, 1926; The Charlotte Observer, June 
6, 1926; Shipley, The War on Modern Science, 94. 

288 The North Carolina Historical Review 

veteran legislator Henry Groves Connor, Jr., largely because of his 
opposition to the Poole Bill in 1925. A similar effort to defeat Nat A. 
Townsend of Harnett County also failed. J. C. Braswell, a Nash County 
physician and outspoken champion of antievolution legislation, was 
"a clearcut casualty" in the primary fight over Darwinism. He was 
defeated by a young Baptist and Wake Forest-educated lawyer, Ot- 
way B. Moss of Spring Hope. Another Baptist and Wake Forest alum- 
nus, Walter J. Matthews, ran on an anti-Poole Bill platform in Scot- 
land County, the home of Judge Walter Neal and a center of anti- 
evolutionist agitation. Matthews roundly defeated the incumbent An- 
gus D. Currie, a Presbyterian who had voted for the Poole measure 
in 1925. 30 

The politics of evolution provoked widespread excitement in Wake 
and Pasquotank counties. In Wake County, which encompassed the 
state's capital city, the antievolutionists received a stunning defeat 
in spite of their vigorous efforts in behalf of Sherwood Upchurch. They 
flooded the county with handbills adorned with pictures of Upchurch 
pointing to a monkey and exclaiming: "I may look like him but I re- 
fuse to claim kin." No less spectacular was the campaign in Pasquo- 
tank County waged by William O. Saunders, the crusading editor of 
The Independent (Elizabeth City) whose repertory of invective had 
long been directed at fundamentalist evangelists, William Jennings 
Bryan, and the Committee of One Hundred. Running on an "anti-Ku 
Klux Klan and anti-Fundamentalist platform," Saunders was over- 
whelmingly defeated by J. Kenyon Wilson, a corporation lawyer sup- 
ported by the county polticians. Although Saunders characterized the 
primary results as a victory for "Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham," it is 
doubtful whether the Pasquotank voters were registering their sup- 
port of antievolution legislation as much as they were disapproving 
the election of so controversial a figure as Saunders. 31 

Of all the primaries the one in Mecklenburg County, "the mecca 
of fundamentalism," promised to be the most turbulent. Two Presby- 
terians, J. Clyde Stancill and William E. Price, were elected. Al- 
though Price had resigned his position in the Committee of One 
Hundred before the primary, he still favored an antievolution law. 
The real fracas, however, took place in the runoff primary between two 
female aspirants for the House, Julia Alexander and Carrie MacLean. 
Julia Alexander, the incumbent, was a Presbyterian closely identified 
with the Committee of One Hundred and a stanch supporter of anti- 

m The Charlotte Observer, May 20, 26, July 7, 1926; The Statesville Landmark, 
July 5, 1926; The Greensboro Daily News, June 9, 15, 1926. 

31 The News and Observer, June 8, 9, 1926; Linder, "Poteat and the Fvolution Con- 
troversy," 153; Saunders, Independent Man, 91-93. 

The Fundamentalist Crusade 289 

evolution legislation; Carrie MacLean was a Baptist and well-known 
attorney who publicly decried efforts to restrict freedom of speech. 
Miss MacLean's victory was interpreted as "a definite and positive 
defeat" for the antievolutionists. In the legislature of 1927 she was 
appointed to the Committee on Education where her vote against a 
second Poole Bill canceled the vote of her colleague from Mecklen- 
burg, William E. Price. 32 

Unquestionably the evolution issue loomed large in the political 
campaigns in the spring of 1926. Henry M. London, the state's legis- 
lative reference librarian, considered the issue significant enough to 
make it the basis for a portion of his analysis of the primary results. 
London calculated that less than 24 per cent of the legislators who 
supported the Poole Bill in 1925 were renominated, while over 37 
per cent of those opposed to the measure retained their seats. Accord- 
ing to his analysis the only legislator defeated for renomination who 
had opposed the Poole Bill was Frank C. Brinson of Pamlico County. 
He had been replaced by Veston C. Banks, a clerk in the Free Will 
Baptist Church which officially endorsed antievolution legislation. In 
the general election in November, 1926, a Republican unseated vet- 
eran Democratic legislator Will W. Neal of McDowell County, pre- 
sumably because Neal's "fundamentalist constituents never forgave 
him for opposing the Poole Bill." Nevertheless, the public generally 
interpreted the outcome of the primaries as a serious, if not disastrous, 
setback for the antievolutionists. A sizable segment of the press 
agreed with The Greensboro Daily News' contention that the pri- 
maries offered irrefutable proof of North Carolina's refusal "to canon- 
ize the faith savers." 33 

In spite of a setback at the polls and a depleted membership, the 
Committee of One Hundred doggedly pursued its original aims. On 
December 9, 1926, the organization underwent an administrative re- 
organization and changed its name to The North Carolina Bible 
League. On the same date Julia Alexander, secretary of the league, 
released the first issue of her periodical entitled The Fundamentalist. 
Shortly thereafter, the league's new president, McKendree Long, a 
Presbyterian minister, launched a whirlwind speaking tour of the state, 
and the organization's chief lobbyist, Thomas C. Bowie, a veteran 
Democratic politician from West Jefferson, prepared for the opening 

82 The Charlotte Observer, July 5, 1926; The Greensboro Daily News, June 4, 14, 
1926; Shipley, The War on Modern Science, 97-98. 

83 The News and Observer, June 16, 1926; The Statesville Landmark, November 22, 
1926; The Greensboro Daily News, June 15, 1926. 

290 The North Carolina Historical Review 

of the legislature. 34 When the General Assembly convened in January, 
1927, the league possessed petitions bearing over 10,000 names to 
support its antievolution bill which Poole introduced after consulting 
Bowie and Turlington. League spokesmen mustered considerable elo- 
quence in an attempt to persuade the House Committee on Education 
to give the bill a favorable report. But their pleas fell on deaf ears; a 
reshuffling of the committee membership since 1925 left the funda- 
mentalists hopelessly outnumbered. When the committee rejected 
Poole's bill by a vote of 25 to 11, its legislative managers accepted 
defeat without attempting to get the measure before the House on 
a minority report. 35 

The majority of North Carolinians during the 1920's undoubtedly 
subscribed to a fundamentalist theology in which there was no place 
for a belief in evolution. Yet, these same North Carolinians refused 
to heed the advice of those who prescribed an antievolution law as a 
remedy for "modern infidelity." The explanation in part lay in the fact 
that most North Carolinians were passive fundamentalists. Although 
anguished by the march of secularism, they remained receptive to the 
moderating influence of William Louis Poteat, Harry Chase, and other 
opponents of legislation designed to restrict freedom of thought and 
teaching. Their fundamentalism was far more flexible and spacious 
than that of the militant minority. The failure of the antievolutionists 
in North Carolina resulted not so much from public hostility to their 
beliefs as from aversion to their tactics. The shrillness of their clamor 
and their inclination to tamper with such principles as religious liberty 
and the separation of church and state seemed more dangerous than 
the infidelity which they claimed to be battling. Noncombative funda- 
mentalists became disenchanted with the antievolution movement in 
the same degree to which it exhibited extremism. And after 1925 the 
antievolutionist zealots hastened their isolation by their extremist 
tendencies and ultimately sealed the doom of their movement by their 
sensationalism and intemperance. 36 

34 The News and Observer, December 10, 31, 1926; The Statesville Landmark, De- 
cember 13, 30, 1926; The Goldsboro News, December 11, 1926; The Fundamentalist, 
I (December 9, 1926), 1-10. 

86 The News and Observer, January 26, 1926. The original of the Poole Bill of 
1927, with the minority report attached, is in the Legislative Papers of 1927, Records 
Center, State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh. 

36 For a provocative essay see Gerald W. Johnson, "The Religious Refugee," The 
Century Magazine, III (February, 1926), 399-404. 


By James Roy Morrill III* 

During the months immediately following the end of the war, 
North Carolina made steady progress under presidential reconstruc- 
tion toward the restoration of normal relations with the Union. 1 The 
President's program was generally popular with the people of the 
state, who desired the quick completion of reconstruction. Johnson's 
appointment of William Woods Holden as provisional Governor in 
May, 1865, however, was not popular, and injected a divisive element 
into North Carolina politics. Holden, a former Democrat and seces- 
sionist who had become converted to unionism during the war, had 
led a long and active political career which had earned him many 
enemies, especially among pre-war Whigs. In the gubernatorial elec- 
tion of October, 1865, the anti-Holden elements pitted Jonathan 
Worth, a former Whig and a unionist, against the provisional incum- 
bent. Defeated in the election and without a political future under 
existing circumstances, Holden in April, 1866, began to advocate 
congressional control of reconstruction. In January, 1867, he adopted 
the principle of universal Negro suffrage. Holden's faction, which in 
March, 1867, became the Republican party of North Carolina, 
claimed that the state was in the hands of unreconstructed rebels 
who sought to persecute Negroes and true loyalists. The Worth 
forces bitterly attacked Holden's advocacy of congressional recon- 
struction and heatedly denied that the state administration intended 
harm to any group. Maintaining that most consistent unionists sup- 
ported the Worth government, anti-Holdenites, of whatever former 
party or beliefs, condemned radicalism and began to refer to them- 
selves as conservative men who desired only reconstruction and 

* Mr. Morrill is an Instructor in Modern Civilization at The University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

1 For an account of events in North Carolina during presidential reconstruction, 
see J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Reconstruction in North Carolina (New York: Long- 
mans, Green and Company [Number 114 of Columbia University Studies in History, 
Economics and Public Law, 605 studies, 1897-1962] 1914), 106-206, hereinafter cited 
as Hamilton, Reconstruction. 

292 The North Carolina Historical Review 

recovery. With the inauguration of congressional reconstruction 
neither desire was to be quickly realized. 

The bill entitled "An Act to Provide for the More Efficient Govern- 
ment of the Rebel States," which became law on March 2, 1867, over 
the executive veto, terminated presidential reconstruction and ini- 
tiated the congressional program. The act of March 2, which was 
supplemented by three later acts, fundamentally altered the status of 
the southern states by providing that the unreconstructed states be 
grouped into five military districts; that the President assign a general 
officer of the United States Army as commander of each district; that 
the commanders maintain the peace and protect the personal and 
property rights of individuals within the districts, using United States 
troops and military tribunals if necessary; that the existing state gov- 
ernments be provisional in nature and subject to modification or abol- 
ishment by the authority of the United States; and that a prescribed 
program be followed by each state in order to qualify its congressmen 
for readmission to Congress. The initial steps of the required program 
were as follows: that a state constitution consistent with the Consti- 
tution of the United States be formed by the people of each state, 
acting through a convention elected by the male citizens of the state, 
twenty-one years or older, of whatever race, color, or previous con- 
dition, who had been resident in the state for at least a year, except 
those persons disfranchised for rebellion or for felony; and that the 
resulting state constitution extend the suffrage on the same basis as 
prescribed for the election of delegates to the constitutional conven- 
tion. 2 

North Carolina conservatives received the reconstruction act with 
a mixture of despair and resignation. Faced with the twin disasters 
of Negro suffrage and military rule, the public realized that active 
resistance to the will of Congress was impossible. The people believed 
that the act was manifestly unconstitutional, but they held little hope 
in the Supreme Court of the United States. The only possible course 
was acceptance of the South's fate. If conservatives agreed that sub- 
mission was a necessity, they were divided over whether positive 
co-operation with congressional reconstruction was wise or consistent 
with honor. One element argued that co-operation was judicious and 
prudent, for conservatives could thereby control the constitutional 
convention and prevent an ultra-radical constitution. Another faction, 
however, insisted that co-operation with Congress would be an en- 
dorsement of the South's humiliation and, therefore, dishonorable 

2 The further provisions of the act of March 2, 1867, are not herein given for they 
have no direct bearing on the subject of this paper. 

General Sickles 293 

and unthinkable. The existence of the latter faction provided radicals 
with the accusation, often voiced, that conservatives sought to ob- 
struct the progress of reconstruction. Regardless of their differences 
over the question of co-operation, most North Carolinians anticipated 
military rule with considerable, and understandable, apprehension. 3 

It was realized that the district commander's personality and views 
would greatly influence the circumstances of reconstruction. 4 A 
benevolent attitude toward the South would do much to ameliorate 
conditions, while a vindictive spirit would compound the state's mis- 
fortune. The announcement of the commander's name was awaited, 
therefore, with avid interest. Conservative newspapers expressed 
confidence that the commanding general to be appointed would be 
magnanimous and just in his relations with North Carolina. 5 Although 
military government was considered inherently objectionable, it was 
viewed in some quarters as a bulwark against the greater evil of 
radical rule. 6 Naturally anxious about the future, nevertheless, con- 
servatives suggested that a wise district commander would allow the 
state's excellent civil machinery to function with a minimum of inter- 
ference. 7 

The appointment of Brevet Major General Daniel E. Sickles as 
commander of the Second Military District 8 could not have surprised 
many persons, for Sickles had served during presidential reconstruc- 
tion as commander of the department which had consisted of North 
Carolina and South Carolina. Although North Carolinians were thus 
generally familiar with his post-war record, his career prior to 1865 

3 For North Carolina's reaction to the reconstruction act and for the differing 
attitudes toward co-operation with it, see the March, 1867, issues of the following 
newspapers: The Daily Sentinel (Raleigh), hereinafter cited as Sentinel; Carolina 
Watchman (Salisbury), hereinafter cited as Carolina Watchman; The Old North 
State (Salisbury), hereinafter cited as Old North State. See also the March, 1867, 
correspondence of Graham and Worth in William Alexander Graham Papers, South- 
ern Historical Collection, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, hereinafter 
cited as Graham Papers, and J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton (ed.), The Correspondence 
of Jonathan Worth (Raleigh: The North Carolina Historical Commission [State De- 
partment of Archives and History], 2 volumes, 1909), hereinafter cited as Hamilton, 

* Sentinel, March 12, 1867; Old North State, March 14, 1867; David L. Swain to 
Thomas Ruffin, March 19, 1867, J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton (ed.), The Papers of 
Thomas Ruffin (Raleigh: The North Carolina Historical Commission [State Depart- 
ment of Archives and History], 4 volumes, 1918-1920), IV, 174. 

5 Sentinel, March 12, 1867; Old North State, March 14, 1867. 

6 Sentinel, March 7, 12, July 9, 1867. 

7 Old North State, March 14, 1867; David L. Swain to William Alexander Graham, 
March 15, 1867, Graham Papers. Worth did not hesitate to suggest this policy to the 
district commander. See Jonathan Worth to H. J. Harris, April 30, 1867, Hamilton, 
Worth, II, 940. 

8 The Second Military District consisted of North Carolina and South Carolina with 
headquarters originally set at Columbia but quickly changed to Charleston, South 
Carolina. R. D. W. Connor, North Carolina (Chicago and New York: The American 
Historical Society, Inc. 4 volumes, 1929), II, 285. 

294 The North Carolina Historical Review 

and his personal convictions were less well known. 9 A lawyer who had 
risen through Tammany Hall to the New York state legislature and, 
in 1856, to the United States House of Representatives, Sickles had 
become an influential Washington personality and a confidant of 
President James Buchanan. 10 Consistently supporting the latter's pro- 
southern administration, Sickles had defended the right of secession 
and had been reluctantly willing to see the southern states depart in 
peace. The South's resorting to violence, however, had terminated 
his sympathy with that section and had made him an active partici- 
pant in the war. Apparently having no moral convictions on the 
question of slavery, Sickles had viewed the war as a struggle to pre- 
serve the Union rather than to alter institutions. He had risen steadily 
to the position of corps commander, only to have his active military 
career ended by the loss of a leg at Gettysburg. Shortly after that 
battle he had begun to urge "magnanimity and justice and concilia- 
tion" toward the South, which, he foresaw, was doomed to ultimate 
defeat. Insisting that the war effort should be pushed until the rebel- 
lion was crushed, he had voted as a Lincoln Democrat in the presi- 
dential election of 1864. In 1865, following the end of the war, Sickles 
had served as administrator for South Carolina. As department com- 
mander during 1866, he had understood southern fear of Negro 
domination but had grown impatient at white intransigence toward 
the Negroes. Indeed, patience and forbearance were not prominent 
among Sickles' attributes. A strong-minded individual, he sincerely 
desired to help the people of the South, but he sometimes lacked the 
tact and restraint to make his policies clear and acceptable to a sen- 
sitive and uneasy population. Reaction to his appointment as district 
commander was therefore mixed; 11 many persons undoubtedly sus- 
pended judgment until they could see how Sickles would wield the 
increased authority granted by the congressional reconstruction 

The General's popularity among the white citizenry increased con- 
siderably as a result of the speech which he delivered upon his arrival 
at Charleston, the district headquarters. Addressing his remarks 
particularly to the colored populace, Sickles admonished the Negroes 
to seek honest employment and to avoid those persons who might 

9 Sentinel, March 15, 1867. The best biography of Sickles is W. A. Swanberg, 
Sickles the Incredible (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1956), hereinafter cited 
as Swanburg, Sickles the Incredible. 

10 Sickles' political future was shattered in 1859, however, when after killing his 
wife's lover, he created a scandal by accepting his faithless mate back into his home. 
Swanburg, Sickles the Incredible, 47-76. 

n Sentinel, March 15, 1867. 

General Sickles 295 

desire to create racial tensions. To allay fears of a pro-radical military 
rule, he promised to be impartial and nonpartisan in his administra- 
tion of the district. 12 Encouraged and relieved by the speech, con- 
servative newspapers called for obedience to and co-operation with 
the military authorities. 13 

If Sickles made a favorable first impression, his General Orders 
No. 1 provoked a mixed response. 14 Emphasizing that the provisional 
governments of North Carolina and South Carolina were subject in 
all respects to the authority of the United States, the order declared 
that all present civil officials were to remain in office. It provided 
further that all local laws not in conflict with federal laws or regula- 
tions were to remain in effect. These provisions relieved conservative 
worries that the Worth administration might be abolished or the state 
laws radically altered. Other provisions of the order, however, evi- 
denced a disturbing readiness to intervene in state affairs. If any civil 
official should fail to do his duty or if any state court should fail to 
provide justice, post commanders were to inform district headquar- 
ters. Post commanders were to arrest and try by military commission 
any offender against whom civil authorities failed or refused to act. 
These and other features of General Orders No. 1 established the 
pattern for Sickles' entire administration, for they reflected the Gen- 
eral's conviction that he was empowered by the reconstruction act 
with all the authority of the United States. He considered himself to 
be not merely the executor of Congress' will, but, as a representative 
of that body, an official actually invested with the absolute authority 
of Congress. Conscientiously adhering to this interpretation— an inter- 
pretation to be challenged by both state and national officials— Sickles 
did not doubt that he could intervene in matters outside the recon- 
struction process itself. 

Sickles' comprehensive interpretation of his authority can be illus- 
trated by a number of his general and special orders. General Orders 
No. 3, for example, established a quarantine on port cities in order to 
prevent the spreading of certain diseases. 15 A more disagreeable indi- 
cation of his concern for the public welfare was the order that, in 
view of the serious grain shortage, no distilled spirits should be pro- 

12 Old North State, April 9, 1867, quoting the Charleston Evening News (South 
Carolina) . 

13 Sentinel, April 2, 4, 1867; Carolina Watchman, April 1, 1867; Old North State, 
April 9, 1867, quoting the Charlotte Times. 

14 For a copy of General Orders No. 1 see Carolina Watchman, April 1, 1867; 
Senate Executive Document No. 14, Fortieth Congress, First Session, 60-61, here- 
inafter cited as Senate Executive Document No. 1U. 

15 House Executive Document No. 342, Fortieth Congress, Second Session, 36-37, 
hereinafter cited as House Executive Document No. 342. 

296 The North Carolina Historical Review 

duced within the district. 16 This was the kind of paternalism the state 
could do without, and the Carolina Watchman doubtless spoke for 
many indignant imbibers and manufacturers when it called Sickles 
an absolute despot who presumptuously fancied himself the moral 
guardian of the people. 17 

Two general orders, involving more serious consequences and im- 
plications, stimulated especially intense resentment and controversy. 
Stating that the collection of debts and the foreclosing of mortgages 
were worsening an already depressed economy, Sickles announced in 
General Orders No. 10 that no private debts incurred between De- 
cember 19, 1860 (the date of South Carolina's secession), and May 
15, 1865, would be collected; that no debts incurred prior to Decem- 
ber 19, 1860, would be collected for a period of 12 months; and that 
no mortgages would be foreclosed for a period of 12 months. 18 These 
and other provisions of General Orders No. 10 marked direct inter- 
vention in the financial life of the state and dramatically exemplified 
Sickles' sweeping interpretation of the reconstruction act. Militant 
objection to the order quickly appeared. In addition to the protests 
that the commander had exceeded his powers, much criticism sprang 
from the economic implications. While the order undoubtedly pleased 
the inarticulate debtor class, influential creditors were thoroughly 
angered by what they felt was unwarranted and illegal interference 
in economic matters. An additional irritant was the date December 
19, 1860, for North Carolina had not seceded until May 20, 1861. 

General Orders No. 10 stirred a tempest and proved to be the most 
fateful of Sickles' orders, but the most hated of his decrees was Gen- 
eral Orders No. 32, which had two highly objectionable provisions. 19 
First, all citizens who had been assessed for taxes and who had paid 
taxes for the current year were declared eligible for jury duty, and it 
was proclaimed that such persons should be added to the jury lists. 
This provision reflected the General's sincere conviction that all citi- 
zens who met society's obligations were entitled to the same rights as 
the most favored citizens. 20 A second provision of General Orders No. 
32 prohibited discrimination in facilities of public conveyance, includ- 

10 Senate Executive Document No. 1J+, 69-70. 

17 Carolina Watchman, June 17, 1867. 

18 Senate Executive Document No. 1U, 62-65. Hamilton, Reconstruction, 223, states 
that General Orders No. 10 was issued in response to the pleas of certain South 

19 Senate Executive Document No. 1U, 70-71. 

20 Jonathan Worth to Mills L. Eure, June 29, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 988. Later, 
in August, a state court ruled that Negro freeholders were entitled to jury duty. 
See Sentinel, August 30, 1867. 

General Sickles 297 

ing railways, highways, and street and waterway transportation. 21 

Both features aroused strong resentment among the white popula- 
tion. The presence of Negroes on juries seemed a travesty upon the 
principle of impartial and intelligent justice. 22 The Raleigh Sentinel 
emphasized the North Carolina requirement that jury members be 
competent, and, some months later, made it abundantly clear that 
Negroes, in the editor's judgment, had failed to meet that qualifica- 

We will guarantee that no intelligent lawyer of . . . the city of Boston 
could contemplate the spectacle, daily presented in our Courts, of negroes 
fresh from the corn-field and the hovel filling our jury-boxes, and sitting 
in judgment upon the most complicated issues of fact and the most vexed 
problems of law, without shuddering. 23 

The criticism of the jury provision was exceeded only by the condem- 
nation of the transportation section of General Orders No. 32. Con- 
servatives vehemently protested that the social integration of the 
races was not required by Congress and that the provision was there- 
fore completely unwarranted and illegal. 24 The specter of enforced 
integration increased the conservative emphasis upon racial differ- 
ences and accelerated the attack upon the principle of democracy- 
policies already intensified by the growing allegiance of the Negroes 
to the Republican party of North Carolina. 

General Sickles' intervention in the state's judicial system proved 
to be a most sensitive issue and the one about which the entire ques- 
tion of civil-military relations came largely to turn. General Orders 
No. 1, it will be recalled, had allowed North Carolina's civil and 
criminal courts to continue functioning, but the order had made it 
clear that the district commander was prepared to intervene or over- 
rule as he deemed fit. Later orders specified the procedure by which 
the state's judicial system became completely and directly account- 
able to district headquarters. 25 Civil law officials were required, 
among other things, to report to the appropriate provost marshal all 
major crimes and the efforts being made to secure justice. At the other 
end of the justice process, district headquarters possessed appellate 
jurisdiction over all criminal courts within the district. 

21 At least one conviction took place under this provision. See General Orders No. 74, 
House Executive Document No. 31*2, 54-55. 

22 Sentinel, June 6, 1867; Carolina Watchman, June 17, 1867; Jonathan Worth to 
H. H. Helper, June 13, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 982-983. 

23 Sentinel, October 7, 1867. 

24 Sentinel, October 11, 1867. 

25 The chief order dealing with the relations between civil law enforcement and 
military is General Orders No. 34, House Executive Document No. 342, 47-48. 

298 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Exercising its appellate jurisdiction, district headquarters reviewed 
a number of North Carolina criminal convictions, some being upheld, 
others commuted, and still others reversed. Conservatives bitterly 
complained of excessive military interference and denounced each 
appellate decision as the act of an absolute despot. The protests grew 
louder when Sickles altered the structure and personnel of the state 
court system. Apparently convinced by reports from his subordinates 
that certain courts might be unjust toward Negroes, he ordered inves- 
tigations which occasionally resulted in the removal of individual 
judges or the abolition of particular courts. The most serious such 
instance concerning North Carolina involved disputes at Fayetteville. 
There Sickles abolished the existing court and established a "provost 
court," consisting of three local men, which had jurisdiction over five 
surrounding counties. The post commander, moreover, could decide 
if any case should be tried by the military authorities. 26 The estab- 
lishment of the court created widespread alarm and resentment, 27 
which increased with the military arrest of a prominent Fayetteville 
resident, Duncan McRae, on the charge of inciting a mob to kill a 
Negro. McRae claimed to have been arrested without due process of 
law, and the affair stimulated further outcries against arbitrary mili- 
tary rule. 28 

While an examination of the records establishes that military inter- 
vention in the state court system was not as severe as conservative 
lamentations would indicate, it should be re-emphasized that many 
individuals denied that Sickles had the authority to intervene at all. 
One prominent state judge, Augustus S. Merrimon, resigned his office 
because he could not accept the General's orders as law higher than 
North Carolina law. 29 His resignation illustrates the frustration among 
the state's jurists and the conflict over the extent of the commander's 

Direct military intervention in state affairs was not limited to judi- 
cial matters. Acting upon the reports and recommendations of subor- 
dinates, Sickles set aside several "irregular" municipal elections, 
postponed a number of other town elections, and appointed to or re- 

28 Special Orders No. 55, Senate Executive Document No. 1U, 84-86. 
'"Jonathan Worth to H. H. Helper, June 13, 1867; Jonathan Worth to John H. 
Wheeler, October 31, 1867; Hamilton, Worth, II, 983, 1,070. 

28 For details of the case, see Jonathan Worth to General Nelson A. Miles, May 
18, 1867; Jonathan Worth to H. H. Helper, June 13, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 
958, 982-983. 

29 See Jonathan Worth to James L. Orr, July 22, 1867; Jonathan Worth to A. S. 
Merrimon, August 1, 1867; Jonathan Worth to W. P. Bynum, August 1, 1867, Hamilton, 
Worth, II, 1,007-1,008, 1,011, 1,012-1,013. See also, William Alexander Graham to 
David L. Swain, July 20, 1867, David L. Swain Papers, Archives, State Department 
of Archives and History, Raleigh. 

General Sickles 299 

moved from certain normally-elective offices a number of specific 
individuals. 30 Before taking any such action, the district commander 
always investigated local conditions, and he continually justified his 
subsequent orders on the basis of necessity or justice. 31 His tampering 
with elections and especially his spot removals and appointments 
undoubtedly struck many people, however, as the deeds of an arbi- 
trary dictator. 

From Charleston, then, emanated numerous orders which directly 
involved the military authority in the social, economic, legal, and 
political life of North Carolina. Conservatives noted wryly that 
Sickles was obviously enjoying himself, and one newspaper com- 
plained that the excessive number of orders would soon constitute a 
new code of laws for the state. 32 If conservatives protested that many 
orders had nothing to do with the process of reconstruction, they 
criticized some of the General's actions concerning that process. As 
the date for registration of voters approached, Sickles chose the regis- 
trars from a list provided by the Freedmen's Bureau— a list containing 
some Negroes and some white Republicans— rather than from one 
submitted by Governor Worth. Conservatives charged that certain 
registrars were incompetent or ineligible for the position. When in 
late August district headquarters published an interpretation of what 
categories of persons were disfranchised by the reconstruction acts, 33 
conservatives complained that the circular appeared too late to re- 
strain the abusive interpretations of individual registrars. 34 It was 
feared, moreover, that the provision establishing several registration 
points within the same registration district would encourage indi- 
vidual Republicans to register and vote at each point. 35 During the 
registration period, conservatives criticized the military authorities for 
not guarding against the fraudulent registration of ineligible Negroes. 

Of fundamental importance to the course of reconstruction in North 
Carolina was the personal and official relationship between General 

30 General Orders No. 5 required military subordinates to report any approaching 
local elections required by law and to notify district headquarters of any incumbents 
who were ineligible for office under the Reconstruction Act. See Senate Executive 
Document No. 14, 62. For specific suspensions of elections and for removals and 
appointments see Special Orders No. 6, No. 15, No. 28, No. 37, No. 38, No. 45, No. 55, 
No. 71, and Senate Executive Document No. 14, 75-76, 77-78, 79-80, 80-81, 81, 82, 
84-86, 89-90. 

81 Hamilton, Reconstruction, 227, states that all removals and appointments were 
made in accord with an agreement between Sickles and Worth that no elections be 
held until after the meeting of the constitutional convention. If such an agreement 
existed at first, Worth certainly did come to deny that Sickles possessed a general 
removal and appointment power. 

32 Old North State, June 8, 1867. 

^Circular dated August 27, 1867, House Executive Document No. 342, 58-60. 

n Sentinel, September 17, 1867. 

35 See General Orders No. 18, Senate Executive Document No. 14, 66-68. 

300 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Sickles and Governor Worth. Striving to maintain the dignity and 
functions of the state government, yet aware that his administration 
could be modified or abolished at any time, Worth found his position 
a difficult and frustrating one. Personally convinced that the recon- 
struction act was unconstitutional, but feeling bound officially to 
consider it valid, 36 the Governor had decided not to resign because of 
his dilemma, but to remain in office for the sake of administrative 
continuity and the welfare of the state. 37 Worth pledged himself to 
co-operate with the district commander in the task of reconstruction, 38 
but fundamental and harmonious co-operation between the two men 
was impossible because of their conflicting interpretations of the 
commander's authority. Quickly challenging Sickles' broad construc- 
tion, the Governor became the champion of those persons who main- 
tained that the district commander could not independently exercise 
congressional authority but could only execute the stated will of 
Congress and act to preserve the peace and protect personal and 
property rights. The state government, Worth argued, was not the 
tool of the military will, but rather the proper agency of civil govern- 
ment subject to the laws of North Carolina. 39 Distressed by what he 
considered an unwarranted assumption of power, the Governor denied 
that Sickles had the authority to interfere in the state's court system, 
to enact social and economic legislation, and to make removals and 
appointments of state and local officials. 40 The difference of interpre- 
tation provided a basis for continuing disagreement in which Worth 
was inherently at the disadvantage. The Governor's appeals to 
Charleston for restriction of military intervention in state affairs proved 
unavailing. 41 

Worth met frustration in his efforts to keep Sickles out of civil 
affairs and he suffered great anxiety about the reported machinations 
of North Carolina Republicans. Worth detested the principles and 
methods of the new state party, 42 and he constantly worried that false 
accusations by Republicans were undermining the district comman- 

30 Jonathan Worth to B. S. Hedrick, July 9, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 1,000. 

37 Jonathan Worth "to his brother," May 8, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 949. 

88 Jonathan Worth to D. E. Sickles, July 9, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 999. 

39 Jonathan Worth to F. B. Satterthwaite, June 12, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 979. 

^Jonathan Worth to F. B. Satterthwaite, June 12, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 979. 

41 See Jonathan Worth to R. Strange, May 22, 1867; Jonathan Worth to Thomas 
C. Fuller, May 26, 1867; Jonathan Worth to John R. Tolar, June 14, 1867, Hamilton, 
Worth, II, 963, 972-973, 983-984. 

"Jonathan Worth to James L. Orr, May 3, 1867; Jonathan Worth to Henry T. 
Clark, May 9, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 943, 950. 

General Sickles 301 

der's confidence in him. 43 If any schemes were afoot, there is no evi- 
dence that Sickles was influenced by them or that the commander was 
dissatisfied with the Governor's official actions. That Worth was not 
removed is itself proof of Sickles' confidence in him, confidence which 
the records verify. 44 The General undoubtedly knew of Worth's differ- 
ing interpretation of the commander's authority, but Worth's pledge 
and policy of co-operation in reconstruction, plus a prudent disinclin- 
ation to remove an elected governor, sufficed to convince Sickles that 
no change need or should be made. Denied the comfort of historical 
perspective, Worth could view the future only with misgivings. 
Troubled by a lack of direct correspondence from Sickles, 45 perplexed 
by the General's refusal to interpret his own orders, 46 and convinced 
that the commander was exceeding the authority granted by the re- 
construction act, Worth appealed to President Andrew Johnson for 
relief from the absolutism emanating from Charleston. 47 The appeal 
intensified the conflict between the President and Congress and ini- 
tiated a series of developments which were greatly to affect the 
military career of General Sickles. 

On June 12, 1867, the Attorney General of the United States, Henry 
Stanbery, representing the views of President Johnson, issued a narrow 
interpretation of the reconstruction act, an interpretation which chal- 
lenged the concept that Congress' full authority had been delegated 
to the district commanders. Stanbery agreed with Worth's position 
by arguing that the district commanders could take the initiative only 
to preserve the peace and to protect personal and property rights; in 
all other respects the commanders were limited to executing the stated 
will of Congress. Expressly refuting the assumption of absolute author- 
ity as reflected in General Orders No. 1 of the Second Military Dis- 
trict, the Attorney General challenged also the nature of General 
Orders No. 10 of the same district. District commanders had no 
authority, he maintained, to prescribe codes of law for their districts, 

43 See Jonathan Worth to Thomas S. Kenan, May 2, 1867; Jonathan Worth to Luke 
Blackmer, May 2, 1867; Jonathan Worth to James L. Orr, May 3, 1867; Jonathan Worth 
to John R. Tolar, June 14, 1867; Jonathan Worth to B. S. Hedrick, July 8, 1867; 
Jonathan Worth to D. E. Sickles, July 9, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 941, 941-942, 
943, 983-984, 997-998, 999-1,000. 

44 D. E. Sickles to U. S. Grant, April 18, 1867, Senate Executive Document No. 
U, 56. 

45 Jonathan Worth to James L. Orr, May 3, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 943. Hamilton, 
Reconstruction, 222, states that the two men often conferred. If so, little correspond- 
ence has survived, and many of Worth's letters mention or decry a lack of direct 
communication with Sickles. 

46 Jonathan Worth to D. F. Caldwell, May 6, 1867; Jonathan Worth to Mills L. 
Eure, June 29, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 947, 989. 

"Jonathan Worth to F. B. Satterthwaite, June 12, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 979. 

302 The North Carolina Historical Review 

nor to exercise general powers of removal and appointment. Governor 
Worth's interpretation had found expression at the national level. 

Upon the publication of the Attorney General's opinion, General 
Sickles informed General Ulysses S. Grant that the power of removal 
and appointment was essential to the preservation of peace and the 
completion of reconstruction. 48 Realizing that Stanbery had spoken 
for the President, Sickles asked to be relieved of command and re- 
quested a board of inquiry to investigate his actions as commander of 
the Second Military District. 49 President Johnson refused to honor 
either request and ordered Sickles to remain at his post in Charleston. 50 
As observers fully realized, 51 the issue was really between the Presi- 
dent and Congress, not Johnson and Sickles. 

The Congress reacted quickly to the presidential challenge. At a 
special July session, a second supplement to the reconstruction act 
was passed over the executive veto. The supplement declared that 
the true intent and meaning of the first act had been to declare the 
provisional governments subject in all respects to the respective dis- 
trict commanders. Affirming that the original act had given the com- 
manders the power of removal and appointment, the supplement 
confirmed all past actions in that regard. It provided also that no 
district commander could be bound by an opinion of any civil official 
of the United States. 

The July supplement effectively consolidated power in the hands 
of Congress and the military, but in August the President chose to 
renew the struggle. At Wilmington a military subordinate interposed 
Sickles' General Orders No. 10 against the execution of a debt judg- 
ment rendered by a Circuit Court of the United States. The subordi- 
nate thus interpreted General Orders No. 10 as applying not only to 
state courts, but also to United States courts within the district. Presi- 
dent Johnson thereupon instructed the Attorney General that no mili- 
tary order could be issued and enforced in conflict with the rulings of 
courts of the United States. General Sickles, who felt honor bound to 
follow his own interpretation of the reconstruction acts, endorsed the 
action of his subordinate, refused to modify or revoke General Orders 
No. 10, and continued to insist upon the commander's complete 
authority over the district. An impasse had been reached. With his 
own sphere of effective action severely limited by the dominance of 

48 D. E. Sickles to U. S. Grant, June 17, 1867 (telegram), Senate Executive Docu- 
ment No. 14, 58. 

* 9 D. E. Sickles to Adjutant General of the Army, June 19, 1867 (telegram), Senate 
Executive Document No. 14, 59. 

50 War Department to D. E. Sickles, June 21, 1867 (telegram), Senate Executive 
Document No. 14, 59-60. 

61 Sentinel, August 16, 1867. 

General Sickles 303 

Congress, the President decided to register his protest in the only 
manner possible. On August 26, 1867, he relieved General Sickles of 
his duties as commander of the Second Military District. 52 

North Carolinians followed with interest and apprehension the 
conflict involving General Sickles, President Johnson, and Congress. 
When the Attorney General issued his narrow interpretation, the 
editor of the Carolina Watchman did not doubt that the district com- 
manders would circumvent the interpretation. 53 When Sickles subse- 
quently requested his own removal and an investigation, the Raleigh 
Sentinel regretted to see the General take such action. While the paper 
acknowledged that it disagreed with the wisdom and necessity of 
some of his orders and with his interpretation of his authority, the 
Sentinel expressed confidence in his motives and in his sincere desire 
for peace and stability. 54 Emphasizing that the district could have a 
commander far less satisfactory than Sickles, the same paper hoped 
that the General would consider withdrawing his request to be re- 
lieved. 55 It was realized, however, that Sickles would resign before 
he would yield on what he considered to be his duty. 56 

In the opinion of the state leaders, the passage of the July supple- 
ment to the reconstruction act settled the question of the scope of the 
district commanders authority. Governor Worth ceased to protest 
against Sickles' broad interpretation, and the Sentinel recognized that 
Congress' victory was complete. 57 When in August the President chose 
to challenge the application of General Orders No. 10 to a Circuit 
Court of the United States, the Sentinel hoped that the issue might 
go to the Supreme Court, but feared that the conflict might lead to 
the removal of Sickles and to the further repression of the South. 58 

North Carolina's reaction to the President's removal of Sickles was 
a mixed one. The Wilmington Journal endorsed the move as an act 
"to maintain the validity of the Constitution." 59 On the other hand, 
the Sentinel, while refusing to consider endorsing Sickles' adminis- 
tration, 60 regretted the loss of a conscientious commander of good 
motives and considerable experience who, if occasionally misguided, 
had acted according to his best lights. 61 The Salisbury Banner, which 

52 For a running account of the conflict of interpretation see the August, 1867, issues 
of the Raleigh Sentinel. 

63 Carolina Watchman, June 24, 1867. 

64 Sentinel, June 21, 1867. 

65 Sentinel, June 21, 1867. 

66 Sentinel, August 26, 1867. 

67 Sentinel, July 5, 10, August 16, 26, 1867. 

68 Sentinel, August 26, 29, 30, 1867. 

59 Carolina Watchman, September 16, 1867, quoting the Wilmington Journal. 

80 Sentinel, September 26, 1867. The suggestion came from South Carolina. 

81 Sentinel, August 29, 30, 1867. 

304 The North Carolina Historical Review 

had been highly critical of Sickles and military government in general, 
admitted that the General had been moderate considering what he 
might have done. 62 Even Governor Worth, some weeks after Sickles' 
departure, acknowledged that the latter had been magnanimous and 
statesmanlike in many respects, and had held southern radicals in 
contempt. 63 

If the passing of a few weeks sufficed to cool Worth's resentment 
and to enable him to judge Sickles more favorably, the dispassionate 
evaluation of a later century establishes the General as a capable, 
humane, and impartial— if somewhat naive and headstrong— adminis- 
trator. Certainly not a vindictive person, he sought to execute con- 
gressional reconstruction and to promote the general welfare of the 
people of the district. It was in attempting to fulfill the latter objec- 
tives that his broad interpretation of his authority proved offensive. 
General Orders No. 32 was designed to further social equality, a goal 
the white citizenry was hesitant to seek. Because Sickles sought the 
social advancement of the Negroes, and because he was a radical by 
conviction, 64 conservatives feared and suspected that he was a radical 
politically. He remained impartial, however, toward all political fac- 
tions. 65 

Many charges were made that the district commander's interven- 
tions in the state court system were arbitrary and despotic, and that 
such interference was as unwarranted as it was illegal. It is quite 
possible, of course, that unjustifiable instances of military intervention 
occurred, for the administration of two states was a task liable to 
error. Corrupt or partisan subordinates may have led Sickles into 
mistakes, as conservatives maintained, but it is equally possible that 
the investigations preceding any action disclosed the need for military 
intervention. In any event, the number of such interventions remained 
small. General Sickles removed few officials, and he rarely tampered 
with state laws to the extent that he did in General Orders No. 10. 
Resentment against any interference was, of course, inevitable; the 
fact that district headquarters was in another state made every act 
seem all the more despotic and unjustified. 

62 Carolina Watchman, September 16, 1867, quoting the Salisbury Banner. 
^Jonathan Worth to B. G. Worth, October 25, 1887; Jonathan Worth to John H. 
Wheeler, October 31, 1867, Hamilton, Worth, II, 1,061, 1,071. 

64 That is, Sickles believed that the southern states had reverted to territories and 
were therefore completely under Congress' authority and jurisdiction. As it has been 
established, he maintained that Congress' jurisdiction had in turn been delegated to 
the district commanders by the reconstruction act. See Sentinel, August 28, 1867. 

65 This impartiality can be seen, for example, in his appointment of members of 
both political parties (and both races) as registrars, and by his appeal for a general 
amnesty for the people of the district. For details of the latter see Sentinel, July 12, 

General Sickles 305 

In summary, General Sickles administered impartially and con- 
scientiously in a difficult and delicate situation. He sincerely believed 
that Congress had complete legislative power over the rebel states, 
and that that power had been delegated to the district commanders 
by the reconstruction acts. Although Sickles' social and economic pro- 
gram created frictions which could have been avoided, in the final 
analysis it was the congressional reconstruction program itself, not 
Sickles' interpretation or implementation of it, which put a severe 
strain on the people of North Carolina. 


By B. W. C. Roberts* 

Cockfighting, the sport that in ancient times was shown to Greek 
soldiers as a demonstration of courage, was popular in seventeenth- 
century England when Carolina was being settled. The versatile Sir 
Walter Raleigh enjoyed a favorable reputation as a cocker. 1 Henry 
VIII, James I, and Charles II were enthusiastic devotees, but Oliver 
Cromwell was displeased with the practice. 

The first known mention of cockfighting in North Carolina is that 
in Brickell's The Natural History of North Carolina, published in 1737. 
Brickell, an Edenton physician, observed: "Cock-fighting the North 
Carolinians greatly admire, which Birds they endeavor to procure 
from England and Ireland, and to that intent, implore Masters of 
Ships, and other Trading Persons to supply them." 2 Brickell's mention 
of the sport suggests that it was prevalent and that it was one of the 
earliest entertainments. 

During the last half of the nineteenth century, which might be 
called the golden age of cockfighting in North Carolina, the popularity 
of the sport reached a peak. In 1860 a detailed set of rules for cock- 
fighting in North Carolina and Virginia was published. 3 There were 
regional differences in the terminology, practices, and rules of cock- 
fighting; however, certain procedures became rather widespread. 

The season lasted from Thanksgiving Day until July 4. 4 A main 
consisted of an odd number of cocks, usually ranging from eleven to 
twenty-one. Each owner or group of owners had to show the decided 
number of birds between certain weights and be prepared to fight 

* Mr. Roberts is an Assistant Foreman at American Tobacco Company in Durham. 

a Tim Pridgen, Courage, The Story of Modern Cockfighting (Boston, Massachusetts: 
Little, Brown and Company, 1938), 87, hereinafter cited as Pridgen, Modern Cock- 

2 John Brickell, The Natural History of North Carolina (Dublin, Ireland: Privately 
printed, 1737), 40. 

3 Rules of Virginia and North Carolina for Cock-fighting (Richmond, Virginia: 
James M. Ford, 1860), 1-12. 

4 W. T. Johnson, Johnson's Breeders' and Cockers' Guide (Americus, Georgia: 
Gammage Print Shop, Third Edition, 1948), 52, hereinafter cited as Johnson, 
Cockers' Guide. 


the pairs that "fell in" or matched weights. In some instances several 
birds were pitted at once in a tournament or battle royal; they were 
allowed to fight until one was victorious. All fights or pittings not 
included in the main were termed hack fights. 

The main pit was approximately twenty feet in diameter enclosed 
by a low fence. Extra pits called drag pits were usually present for 
drag fights. These were fights transferred from the main pit when the 
birds were exhausted or nearly dead but continued to break the count, 
that is, to make a strike before the referee could complete the count. 
The drag pits made it possible to maintain rapid action in the main 
pit. A handler could call for a count when his bird had made the last 
offensive effort and it appeared the opponent could not strike. If the 
apparently disabled bird failed to strike before the count was com- 
pleted, he lost; but if he struck during the count the count procedure 
had to be repeated from the beginning. There were several differences 
in the count procedure among the various sets of rules. 

Basic skills for a cocker included breeding, conditioning, trimming, 
heeling, and handling. Breeding was of utmost importance. The own- 
ers of cocks considered them treasures and bred to improve their 
strain as if they were thoroughbred horses. A list of outstanding early 
North Carolina breeds would include the names of the Red Cubans 
of George W. Means of Concord, the Norwood War Horses of James 
Norwood of Hillsboro, the Stonefences of Nick Arrington of Nash 
County, and the Carolina Blues and the Mountain Eagles of W. S. 
Church of Boonville. North and South Carolina breeders regularly 
sold cocks to the Chihuahua chieftain of Mexico, Francisco Villa, who 
was one of the most enthusiastic Mexican cockers since Santa Anna. 5 

The conditioning of a cock was begun long before the day of the 
main. The bird was subjected to strenuous exercise, sparring, and a 
rigid diet. For sparring, hots or muffs, which were stiff leather-covered 
balls like small boxing gloves, were attached over the cock's natural 
spurs. The other exercises were for building leg and wing muscles and 
maintaining the proper weight. A cock was considered a candidate 
for fighting after he was one to two years old and had been trained. 

Trimming or dubbing was considered a very important art by cock- 
ers. Usually the tail was cut to approximately one-third of its natural 
length; the hackle and rump feathers were shortened; and the wings 
were trimmed at a slope. Even the comb was cut in order to present 
a smaller target to an attacker. Also important were the selection, the 
heeling or attaching, and peaking of the gaffs. These arts, considered 

Pridgen, Modern C ock fighting , 197-198. 


The North Carolina Historical Review 

Trimming, an important art. Reproduced from May, 1857, Harper's New Monthly 

valuable secrets, were handed down from one generation to another 
but seldom mentioned beyond the family circle. 

Betting, a normal part of every cockfight, generally took three 
forms. The entrance fees paid by the cockers made up a purse which 
went to the winner of the main or for those that placed. Usually the 
cockers and spectators wagered on the individual battles or the main. 
Before the main began, the names of each cocker or group of cockers 
were auctioned to the spectators to form another purse which was 
given to the high bidder on the winning cocker. 

The following is an account of a typical cockfight. On the day of 
the main, the roads leading to the town, plantation, or tavern where 
the cock pit was located were crowded with carriages, horses, and 
men of all classes and occupations in a jolly mood. Symbols of strength 
and vitality, the beautiful gamecocks with impressive, glossy feathers 
of sundry shades of color were transported in cages or burlap bags. 
After having been paired according to weight, the splendid creatures 
were carried to the center of the pit by the pitters, or handlers, to bill. 
In the billing, or opening phase of the fight, the cocks were allowed 


to antagonize each other by pecking. Steel-pointed, razor-sharp gaffs, 
varying in length from an inch-and-a-quarter to over three inches, 
were fastened at the cocks' shanks. Then the pitters, who were not 
allowed to place their hands under the birds, held them behind the 
lines which were six feet apart. After the referee yelled "Ready-y-y" 
and "Pit," the cocks were released. The birds were not touched again 
by the handlers except when the referee cried "Handle!" The crowd, 
eager to see, shoved and shouted as the birds were released. The fight 
that followed was as savage as can be imagined. The betters, some a 
bit intoxicated, were uproarious; and their noise excited the game- 
cocks even more. The cocks fought vigorously and admirably as the 
handlers watched silently, ready to assist their respective birds swiftly 
when permissible. The birds fluttered their wings and met about two 
feet above the ground striking rapidly. The fight was of short dura- 
tion, and the handler grabbed the victor and bathed his wounds with 
alcohol. Before the betters could settle their affairs, the next pitting 
was underway. 

The sport gained popularity in various sections of the state. The 
first known club organized in North Carolina for the purpose of con- 
ducting cockfights, as well as horse races, was the Wilmington Jockey 
Club which held its first meeting November 26, 1774. 6 A letter was 
sent to the members of the club to inform them of the efforts of the 
Continental Congress to "discountenance and discourage every species 
of extravagence and dissipation, and especially all horse racing, and 
all kinds of gaming, cock-fighting, exhibitions of shows and plays and 
other expensive diversions and entertainments." 7 

Another account of life at Wilmington by Peter du Bois relates "I 
live very much retired for want of a social set, who will drink claret 
and smoke tobacco till four in the morning; the gentlemen of this 
town [could] be so if they pleased, but an intolerable itch for gaming 
prevails in all companies." 8 

In 1787, Elkanah Watson, who owned a plantation on the Chowan 
River, "accompanied a prominent planter at his urgent solicitation, to 
attend a cock-fight in Hampton County, Virginia, a distance of twenty 
miles." 9 

6 Andrew P. O'Conor, Forty Years With Fighting Cocks (Goshen, New York: 
Privately printed, 1929), 82. 

7 Alfred Moore Waddell, A History of New Hanover County and the Lower Cape 
Fear Region, 1723-1800 (Wilmington: Volume I, [no more published], 1909), I, 88. 

8 Charles M. Andrews, Colonial Folkways, A Chronicle of American Life in the 
Reign of the Georges (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, Textbook 
Edition, 1921), 111. 

9 Winslow C. Watson (ed.), Men and Times of the Revolution: Memoirs of Elkanah 
Watson (New York: Dana and Company, 1856), 267. 


The North Carolina Historical Review 



A letter written in 1797 described the excitement in Halifax over a 
future cockfight. In these contests, "the gentlemen in town fight 
against those of the country, otherwise it is the Longs against the 
Alstons." 10 A newspaper advertised the event as follows: "The sports- 
men of the neighboring counties are informed, that on Monday next, 
the 8th instant [May], a main of 21 cocks will be fought in this town 
[Halifax], at which much sport is expected/' 11 

An old resident of Salisbury described Andrew Jackson as follows: 
"He was [about 1785] the most roaring, rollicking, game cocking, 
cardplaying, mischievous fellow that ever lived in Salisbury." 12 His 
cocks were greatly admired; in modern times a cock that shows offen- 
sive vigor after losing an eye is still termed a "Jackson." 13 

In Pittsboro a three-day main was held in 1806 at Joseph H. Har- 
man's Tavern. The purse held ten dollars for each fight and three 
hundred dollars for the main. 14 

In 1806 an advertisement posed a "Challenge!" It was announced 

a number of gentlemen of two of the lower counties of North Carolina, 
and of two southern counties of Virginia, offer to meet the gentlemen of 
Maryland at Norfolk, any time between the 20th of March and 18th of 
July, 1807, to show fifty cocks, and match not less than twenty-one in 
the main. The main is to be from one to ten thousand dollars, as may 
be agreed on. Letters with proposals, addressed to Adam Lindsay, near 
Norfolk, will be forwarded to the challengers, and duly answered. 15 

A resident of Mecklenburg County described cockfighting in that 
area in the 1840's as "one of the fashionable amusements of the day" 
and named Tom Black as an expert in respect to chicken mains. 16 

In Warrenton, a town widely known for its festive occasions, cock- 
fighting was thoroughly enjoyed. Some cockfights would last a full 
week with the event sometimes continuing through the night. Before 
1850 pits for cockfights were maintained in Warrenton on a vacant 
lot adjoining the town commons. One account of early life in War- 
renton tells of a Frenchman who bought dead or badly wounded 

10 Henry McGilbert Wagstaff (ed.), The Harris Letters (Chapel Hill: The University 
of North Carolina Press [Volume 14, No. 1 of The James Sprunt Studies in History 
and Political Science'] , 1916), 44. Letter from Charles W. Harris to Dr. Charles 
Harris, May 8, 1797. 

11 North-Carolina Journal, May 1, 1797. 

12 R. D. W. Connor, North Carolina: Rebuilding an Ancient Commonwealth, 1585- 
1925 (Chicago, Illinois: The American Historical Society, Inc., 4 volumes, 1929), 1, 217. 

"Johnson, Cockers' Guide, 119. 
u Raleigh Register, July 14, 1806. 
15 North Carolina Journal, July 28, 1806. 

"John Brevard Alexander, Reminiscences of the Past Sixty Years (Charlotte: Ray 
Printing Company, 1908), 189-190. 

312 The North Carolina Historical Review 

roosters from the cock pit and cooked them or resold them to others. 17 

The finest gamecocks in North Carolina were found in Nash County. 
A country gentleman of considerable wealth, Nick Arrington, was 
said to have owned several hundred gamecocks in 1856. Numerous 
accounts have been written concerning his experiences as a cocker; 
he might be termed the most widely known North Carolina cocker of 
all time. The noted Stonefence breed was developed successfully by 
him. He once accepted a challenge from Santa Anna, political leader 
and President of Mexico (1833-1855). Each refused to travel into the 
other's country, but they met in ships in the Gulf of Mexico. Nick 
Arrington returned victorious. 18 Another tale, possibly a second meet- 
ing, tells of Arrington's accepting a challenge from Santa Anna. He 
traveled to Mexico in a covered wagon that was guarded while in 
Mexico by Santa Anna's soldiers. It was said that he returned from 
this trip with $16,000 in winnings. 19 

In 1866, during the difficult days following the Civil War, John J. 
Adcock operated a barroom on the Granville-Orange boundary line 
where cockfighting was enjoyed. 20 

Interstate mains became annual events. An interstate main of 
twenty-one cocks between North Carolina and South Carolina was 
held in Wilmington in 1896. James Norwood of Hillsboro managed 
the North Carolina entries and Ike Rhodes of Wilmington fed and 
conditioned them. Seventeen of the twenty-one entries shown were 
matched according to weight and North Carolina won nine to three, 
at which time South Carolina had no chance of gaining a majority 
of wins. 21 

The very famous cock, Jaybird, of the Red Cuban strain was devel- 
oped by George W. Means of Concord. In 1899 Jaybird distinguished 
himself in Jesus Maria, Mexico, when he won $10,000 in a single 
fight. 22 This was the highest recorded winning for a single fight by an 
American bird. The cock was sold in Mexico for an unknown amount. 
A fine picture of Jaybird, painted by J. C. Sturzel, a noted Chicago 
artist, has been widely reproduced. 23 Jaybird reputedly won twenty- 

17 Lizzie Watson Montgomery, Sketches of Old Warrenton, North Carolina (Raleigh: 
Edwards and Broughton, 1924), 25-39. 

18 Joseph Blount Cheshire, Nonnulla (Chapel Hill: The University of North Caro- 
lina Press, 1930), 179-184. 

19 Pridgen, Modern Cockfighting, 199-203. 

20 Nannie May Tilley, The Bright-Tobacco Industry, 1860-1929 (Chapel Hill: The 
University of North Carolina Press, 1948), 113. 

21 James Norwood, War Horses and Crosses (Durham: The Seeman Printery, 1901), 

^George W. Means, 1903 Red Cuban Games (Concord: Privately printed, 1903), 
11-12, hereinafter cited as Means, Red Cuban Games. 

23 Means, Red Cuban Games, back cover. 



seven fights before being retired by old age/ 

Apparently cockfighting was popular with college men too, for in 
1799 regulations of The University of North Carolina state that "A 
student shall not . . . keep cocks or fowls of any kind, or for any pur- 
pose." 25 Another educational institution also had such a problem. A 
young man of a prominent family, Andrew L. Jones from Norfolk, Vir- 
ginia, came to North Carolina to attend Elon College. For several 
months he kept a gamecock hidden beneath his bed, for he believed 
that if the authorities knew of this fowl he would surely be expelled. 
His winnings were growing rapidly when a member of the adminis- 
tration, hearing of the cock, visited his room to make inquiries. Al- 
though he did not deny having the cock, young Jones pretended to 
know nothing about the bird. Just then the cock crowed loudly. For 
several days young Jones persuasively pleaded with the administration 
for forgiveness. Jones was very morose over losing his cock, but he 
was allowed to remain in school. 

The early laws of North Carolina provided regulations on gaming. 
In 1715 the first codification of laws included a law which prohibited 
"Gameing" on Sundays and certain holidays. 27 In 1749 the English 
law relating to "deceitful, disorderly, and excessive Gaming" was 
adopted in North Carolina, but this vague legal attempt did not prove 
to be successful. 28 A rather lenient attitude toward gambling is notice- 
able in the law of 1753, which made regulations only against "Persons 
so playing or betting, any sum above Forty Shillings." 29 For many 
years afterward the laws relating to cockfighting were enacted and 
expunged rapidly and were not strictly enforced. 30 After 1815, how- 
ever, the state press refused to publish advertisements of cock mains, 
for cockfighting was definitely banned by the church. 31 

Except for some Spanish-speaking countries and several states in 
the United States (Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, New Mexico, and Vir- 
ginia), cockfighting has been prohibited by law in the majority of the 

^Pridgen, Modern Cockfighting, 188-189. 

25 Louis R. Wilson and Hugh T. Lefler (eds.), A Documentary History of the Uni- 
versity of North Carolina, 1776-1799, compiled and annotated by R. D. W. Connor 
(Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2 volumes, 1953), II, 487. 

20 Interview with E. W. Parker, Durham, May 17, 1959. 

^Walter Clark (ed.), The State Records of North Carolina (Winston, Goldsboro, 
and Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 16 volumes and 4-volume index [compiled by 
Stephen B. Weeks for both Colonial Records and State Records], 1895-1914), XXIII, 
3, hereinafter cited as Clark, State Records. 

28 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 324. 

29 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 250. 

30 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 387, 611, 677, 838; XXIV, 324, 325, 655, 658, 731, 
955, 956; XXV, 80, 250. 

31 Guion Griffis Johnson, Ante-Bellum North Carolina (Chapel Hill: The University 
of North Carolina Press, 1937), 181. 

314 The North Carolina Historical Review 

countries of the world. Generally these prohibitive laws were intro- 
duced in the early years of the nineteenth century. 

At present the law in North Carolina in respect to cockfighting is 
as follows: 

If any person shall keep, or use, or in any way be connected with, or 
interested in the management of, or shall receive money for the admission 
of any person to, any place kept or used for the purpose of fighting, or 
baiting any bull, bear, dog, cock or other animal; or if any person shall 
encourage, or aid or assist therein, or shall permit or suffer any place to 
be kept or used, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction 
shall be fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court. 32 

A municipality in North Carolina has the power "to prohibit prize 
fighting, cock and dog fighting," that is, the power to make the state 
law more specific. 33 In some cases spectators have been arrested and 
punished. Thus, a sport enjoyed in North Carolina since the Colonial 
period has been repressed by stringent legal regulations. 

32 General Statutes of North Carolina, 14-362. 

83 General Statutes of North Carolina, 160-200 (23). 


By Paul V. Lutz * 

During the Revolution, both Congress and the states did what they 
could to raise an army, feed, clothe, and adequately care for it. Cir- 
cumstances often prevented achieving ideal conditions and many 
soldiers failed to receive sufficient food, clothing or pay; nevertheless, 
this should not detract from the sincere efforts of the government, be 
it Congress or the state, to do its best. 

Each state had its own method of raising troops and supplying them. 
Most, if not all, offered some type of bounty to gain recruits. But the 
reason was twofold: it was an inducement to prospective enlistees, 
and insured fair and proper treatment of those who were willing to 
fight for independence. 

North Carolina, like her sister states, duly provided for her troops. 
In fact, in many respects, the Tarheels received greater advantages 
and rewards for their endeavors than the men serving from most other 
states. In 1778 she offered a cash bounty of $100 for every man volun- 
teering. 1 This was raised to an annual bounty of $500 in 1780 2 and 
finally in 1781 to a cash bounty of £3,000. 3 ' 

Besides the aforesaid cash bounties, the act of 1780 provided that 
at the end of the war, those who had enlisted for the duration should 
receive "one prime slave between the age of fifteen and thirty years, 
or the value thereof. . . ." 4 This provision was carried over in the 1781 
law. While the offer of a slave may seem unusual, it must be remem- 
bered that in 1780 slaves were considered valuable property. 

As early as 1778 North Carolina provided an issue of clothing for 
her troops. This was a definite advantage, as many states required 

* Mr. Lutz, of Tyler, Texas, is General Attorney for the St. Louis Southwestern 
Railway Company, and is a director of the Manuscript Society. 

1 Walter Clark (ed.), The State Records of North Carolina (Winston, Goldsboro, 
and Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 16 volumes and 4-volume index [compiled by 
Stephen B. Weeks for both Colonial Records and State Records], 1895-1914), XXIV, 
154, hereinafter cited as Clark, State Records. 

2 Clark, State Records XXIV, 338. 
8 Clark, State Records, XXIV, 368. 

* Clark, State Records, XXIV, 338. 

316 The North Carolina Historical Review 


TO All T O \" U M THESE PR ESSKT5 I H A L L COME 0*«t*»*«. 

^,4 t5&M-*p* v. „ jW CT;ry hamW acre*, h«-!>y gra« 4 < P jii 

T/"S r OWYE„ 1 hat We, .'« s,,^^,. : r.-ai-.-r oC the i.n- 


s tr , 

to U. &Ji to. oi ««*?, rur cXU^'is 4 fcjfe fe> _ ^4»-<A> Jt&Xfr U***fr M^atMfUM* ^tj,. V*»* 


Grant of 640 acres in North Carolina, plus survey plat. From the collection of Paul 
V. Lutz. 

soldiers to clothe themselves, a practice dating back to the French 
and Indian Wars. The clothing allotment consisted of "a Pair of Shoes 
and Stockings, two Shirts, a Hunting Shirt, Waistcoat with Sleeves, 
a Pair of Breeches and Trousers, a Hat, and a Blanket and Five Yards 
of Tent Cloth. . . ." 5 Thus, it can be seen that the state was concerned 
over the welfare of her troops. In addition to his personal comfort, a 
soldier's morale depended also on the welfare of his family at home. 
The North Carolina legislature no doubt was aware of this. Most 
of the citizens tilled the land and the loss of the head of the household, 
in any event, was a severe blow to the economic well-being of a 
family. Accordingly, in the aforesaid act of 1781 provision was made 
for "a bounty of three barrels of corn for his [the soldier's] wife, and 
two for each of his children who shall be in his family, and shall be 
under ten years of age, such corn to be delivered annually. . . ." 6 

Besides the cash, clothes, and food, in 1780 the soldier was offered 
at the end of the war 200 acres of land in addition to the prime slave. 7 

5 Clark, State Records, XXIV, 155. 

6 Clark, State Records, XXIV, 368. 

7 Clark, State Records, XXIV, 338. 

A State's Concern for Soldiers' Welfare 317 

This was increased to 640 acres in 1781 8 and in 1782 a graduated 
scale according to rank was enacted whereby a private got 640 acres 
and noncommissioned and commissioned officers received from 1,000 
to 12,000 acres, depending on rank. 9 Thus, a soldier could look for- 
ward after the war to a sizable plot of ground and a slave to help 
him farm it. Undoubtedly many soldiers took the cash value in lieu of 
the slave. Originally the land was nonassignable so long as the person 
remained in the service, but this restriction was removed by the act 
of 1782 and many of those entitled to the land sold their rights for cash. 

Lastly, in 1783 the state recognized that the paper currency had so 
depreciated that it was "not worth a Continental." This worked a 
hardship on the soldiers, particularly since they were usually paid 
late. By the time they received their pay, it had depreciated consid- 
erably. By 1782 it was computed that it took 800 paper dollars to 
make one dollar in gold or silver. So a law was enacted whereby the 
value of paper money in relation to specie was computed for each 
month of the war and the soldier compensated for such depreciation 
accordingly. 10 

Thus did North Carolina entice and reward her soldiers. As proof 
that such actions were motivated by a concern for the well-being and 
comforts of the men, and not merely as a practical means of securing 
her quota of enlistments, there is evidence of the attention given the 
citizen-soldier who had the misfortune of being captured by the 
British. A document listing supplies "sent to the North Carolina 
Troops that are prisoners in South Carolina" on July 10, 1780, ade- 
quately demonstrates the concern the state had for these men. While 
there was no Red Cross to look after the welfare of prisoners of war 
in the Revolution, some of its modern functions were nevertheless 
carried out. The document, believed to have been written by a mem- 
ber of the State Board of War, listed the following items as being 

1 pipe of wine 

1 Barrell of Loaf Sugar 220 lb nt. 

6 Barrells of Brown d° [sugar] 1660 gross 

4 Baggs of Coffee 510 nt. 

7 Hogsheads Rum 800 Gallons 

7 Barrells of Flour 

10 Barrells Bread 

2 Baggs of Coffee 

Clark, State Records, XXIV, 369. 
Clark, State Records, XXIV, 420. 
9 Clark, State Records, XXIV, 485. 

318 The North Carolina Historical Review 


List of supplies sent to North Carolina soldiers imprisoned in South Carolina. From 
the collection of Paul V. Lutz. 

On the back is a list of figures totaling 10,900. While there is no 
explanation for these, from the number it appears they show the cost 
of the various items, that is, $10,900." 

Since it was the duty of the British to supply the necessities of life 
to prisoners, it can be seen that the state was only furnishing supple- 
ments or extras to make life a little more pleasant for these men. The 
document shows that the devotion of soldier to his country was met 
by devotion of country to her soldiers. Both were well founded and 
deserve recognition and remembrance. 

"Document in the author's collection. 




By Bruce L. Clayton * 

Today, as the political walls of the "Solid South" seem to be 
crumbling, the fact that southern political thought since the Civil War 
has not been as uniform as many politicians and pundits seem to 
think should be recognized. Dissident voices have cried out for a two- 
party system for many decades and large pockets of Republican senti- 
ment have dotted Dixie ever since Appomattox. One of the most artic- 
ulate of the South's advocates of a two-party political structure, 
William Garrott Brown, was an Alabama-born, Harvard-educated, 
intellectual. 1 Brown, who lived in North Carolina during the first 
decade of this century, was a historian and journalist who became 
convinced that many of his native regions ills stemmed from the fact 
that it was solidly Democratic. As a tubercular resident in an Ashe- 
ville sanatorium, he met influential Tarheel Republicans and threw 
himself into the fight to rebuild that party in North Carolina and in 
the South. 

William Garrott Brown thought the South needed a strong, respec- 
table Republican party to criticize the Democrats and to give the 
people a chance to exercise their right of choice in elections. Person- 
ally, he preferred the Democratic party as represented by Grover 
Cleveland and other conservative, "sound money" men, before the 
days when Bryanism was dominant. 2 Yet Brown never abandoned his 
belief that the South needed two parties. At the time of his death in 

* Mr. Clayton is Assistant Professor of History at King College, Bristol, Tennessee. 

x For sketches of Brown's life see John Spencer Bassett, "My Recollections of 
William Garrott Brown," The South Atlantic Quarterly, XVI (April, 1917), 97-107; 
Francis G. Caffey, "William Garrott Brown," in Allen Johnson, Dumas Malone, and 
Others (eds.) , Dictionary of American Biography (New York: Charles Scribner's 
Sons, 22 volumes and index [1928—]), III, 158-159; Wendell H. Stephenson, "William 
Garrott Brown: Literary Historican and Essayist," The Journal of Southern History, 
XII (August, 1946) , 313-344. 

2 For a detailed account of the free-silver controversy, see C. Vann Woodward, 
Origins of the New South, 1877-1913, Volume IX of A History of the South, edited 
by Wendell Holmes Stephenson and E. Merton Coulter (Baton Rouge: Louisiana 
State University Press [projected 10 volumes, 1948 — 1, 1951), 235-291, hereinafter 
cited as Woodward, Origins of the New South. 

320 The North Carolina Historical Review 

1913, when Woodrow Wilson had been elected president and many 
southerners were slated for key government positions, Brown was 
still advocating a strong Republican party in Dixie. Although at first 
glance it might appear that his motivation was primarily political, 
Brown's position was rooted in a sense of fairness and idealism and 
only superficially prompted by political considerations. 

Brown lived during an era when the South was politically impotent 
on the national level. 3 The son of an Alabama banker and merchant, 
he was born in Marion, Alabama, in 1868. Free public schools existed 
but he was sent to the local, private preparatory school. At the age 
of eighteen he was graduated from Howard College in Marion, and 
after a year of independent study he became a lecturer in English 
at the Marion Military Institute. After two years in this position, 
Brown left for graduate study at Harvard in 1889. He took a second 
B.A. in 1891 and an M.A. in 1892; at each of the three graduations 
he finished with highest honors. 

In 1892 he was placed in charge of the Harvard University Archives. 
Brown would have liked to enter politics but his hearing, which had 
been defective since birth, grew worse in the late 1880's, and he de- 
cided that library work would allow him to make a living and continue 
certain historical studies he had begun as a student. He was active 
in the library until 1901, when he was appointed lecturer in Amer- 
ican history. At the end of the year he gave up this position and left 
Harvard to make his way in the world with his pen. His next 11 years 
( he died of tuberculosis at the age of f orty-five ) were spent in travel- 
ing and living in the South, and in writing books, articles and political 
editorials for Harpers Weekly. As a writer he gained an enviable 
reputation. Editors were eager for him to contribute to their maga- 
zines and such important political figures as Woodrow Wilson, Wil- 
liam Howard Taft, and Theodore Roosevelt commented approvingly 
on his writings and ideas. 4 

During the closing years of the nineteenth century and the first 
decade of the twentieth, the South was politically isolated in national 

3 Woodward, Origins of the New South, 456-459; William Garrott Brown, "The 
South in National Politics," The South Atlantic Quarterly, IX (April, 1910), 103-105, 
hereinafter cited as Brown, "South in National Politics." 

4 For certain editors' views, see Frederick C. Howe to Brown, November 18, 1903 ; 
J. Henry Harper to Brown, September 24, 1905; Alexander Jessup to Brown, Decem- 
ber 8, 1903; H. W. Mabie to Brown, June 3, 1903; Shailer Mathews to Brown, 
March 17, 1903, William Garrott Brown Papers, Duke Manuscript Collection, Duke 
University, Durham, hereinafter cited as Brown Papers; for politicians' comments, 
see Theodore Roosevelt to Brown, December 5, 1908, in Elting E. Morison (ed.), 
The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univer- 
sity Press, 8 volumes, 1952) , VI, 1,411 ; William H. Taft to Brown, November 3, 
1910, and Woodrow Wilson to Brown, November 7, 1911, Brown Papers. 

William Garrott Brown 321 

affairs. At the time when the Republican party dominated the White 
House and Congress, the South remained solidly Democratic. Ac- 
cordingly, southerners did not receive Cabinet positions or Supreme 
Court appointments. Nor did they serve as chairmen of important 
committees or gain many key positions in Congress. Although the 
Democratic party had succeeded in electing Grover Cleveland presi- 
dent in 1884 and 1892, his brand of conservatism had alienated many 
poor farmers and urban workers below the Mason-Dixon line. 5 Brown 
was satisfied with Cleveland but felt very deeply about the isolation 
of the South. 

Brown and his fellow observers who pined for a stronger South had 
watched southern Democracy's wavering between a western alliance 
with Bryan in 1896 and 1900, and with the eastern conservative, 
Alton B. Parker in 1904. In 1908 when Bryan, again the Democratic 
standard-bearer, carried the whole South but only three states in the 
west, it was apparent that the old sectional alliances and balances of 
power did not offer the solution to the South's isolation. 6 Brown and 
others reasoned that if the southern states had strong Republican 
parties, they could demand the attention of northern Republicans. 

Political solidarity, Brown believed, also caused ills which were 
worse than political isolation. One-party politics led to graft and cor- 
ruption, he charged, and to the very negation of democracy's precepts. 
A monolithic political structure, "makes for narrowness and bigotry, 
and against candor and independence. It has frequently caused and 
may still be causing, persecution for opinion's sake." Moreover, it 
tended "more and more to drive out of public life men of freedom and 
independent minds and to give opportunity and power to men who 
. . . have freely invoked bigotry and prejudice and intolerance to 
overwhelm manliness and independence in others." 7 Seeing the prob- 
lem and not fearing to state it in its boldest form, Brown set out to 
help revive the party of Lincoln in Dixie. 

The road which the Republican party had to travel in the South 
was rough, long, and unaccommodating. Although Republican presi- 
dents from Rutherford B. Hayes to William McKinley had attempted 
to make significant political inroads into the region, by the turn of the 
century the party had fewer members than in 1876. 8 Everywhere in 
Dixie the party of Lincoln was derided by Democrats as the "nigger" 

6 Woodward, Origins of the New South, 175-204, 235-263. 

6 Woodward, Origins of the New South, 460. 

7 Brown, "South in National Politics," 111. 

8 Vincent P. DeSantis, Republicans Face the Southern Question: The New De- 
parture Years, 1877-1897 (Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), 

322 The North Carolina Historical Review 

party, as the party of turncoat "scalawags" and unwanted "carpet- 
baggers." Intimately linked in the popular mind with the pervasive 
myths of reconstruction, the party was further hampered by the 
scourge of all organizations, factionalism. 

Other more concrete disorders plagued the Republican party in 
the South. In the age of fierce, personal journalism which bristled with 
editors who had strong political preferences, the South in the early 
years of the twentieth century had but one daily Republican news- 
paper, the Greensboro Daily Industrial News. 9 Moreover, the party 
was at the mercy of the Democrats in many instances. Stuffed ballot 
boxes, tissue ballots, corrupt election officials (nearly always Demo- 
crats ) who administered the various suffrage tests and other rules, all 
tended to hamper the growth of the party. 10 In most southern towns 
and cities it took a lot of courage to espouse openly the Republican 
party. The moment one broke from the "white man's party" one more 
often than not suffered social and economic ostracism. Furthermore, 
a majority of southerners sincerely believed that the Republican party 
in the region was made up of greedy, patronage-hungry politicians 
and postmasters. 

The party was not "respectable," men of Brown's ilk contended. It 
was a farce and it existed only to supply delegates to Republican 
national conventions. Many believed, as did Brown and his fellow 
critics, that Republican presidents used their control over federal 
patronage to assure themselves the support of the southern delegates. 
The system had developed whereby a "referee," a local, faithful Re- 
publican, was awarded the privilege of distributing federal patronage 
in his state. He, in turn, was to repay the president by seeing that the 
right delegates were chosen by the state Republican convention. 
Generally the bulk of the patronage came under the authority of the 
Postmaster General, for this was in the day when thousands of post- 
office jobs were filled every four years. 11 

Brown contended that these southern Republican machines existed 
simply for the benefit of supplying the prostituted delegates and for 
the chance to control federal appointments. They were not concerned 
about the party's success or failure at the polls because they simply 
did not care about local victories. They existed solely because of their 
greed. To effect a remedy for the affliction of the body politic, Brown 

9 David C. Roller, "The Greensboro Daily Industrial News and North Carolina 
Republican Politics, 1905-1908" (unpublished master's thesis, Duke University, 1962), 

10 Woodward, Origins of the New South, 102-106, 235-263. 

11 Dorothy G. Fowler, The Cabinet Politician: The Postmasters General, 1829-1909 
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 291-296, hereinafter cited as Fowler, 
The Cabinet Politician. 

William Garrott Brown 323 

worked to promote a healthy Republican party in the South, and he 
wrote, both publicly and privately, that President Taft would have to 
stop federal patronage to party hacks. 12 Brown believed that a sizable 
part of the South's population had Republican leanings, and that 
this could be exploited only if federal appointments were made in con- 
sideration of this group. If a southern state had no Republican party 
except the machine, he thought federal patronage should be given to 
conservative Democrats. This strategy plus a sincere concern on the 
part of the Republican party for the southern Republicans, would act, 
according to Brown, as a stimulus to the development of the second 

The southern policy of the Republican party's managers in pre- 
election maneuverings of 1908 demonstrated to Brown the political 
realities of patronage politics. President Roosevelt, who had success- 
fully taken control of the southern Republican machines from Mark 
Hanna in 1902 by a series of adroit moves and had the southern dele- 
gation assured by the time of the national convention in 1904, 13 
instructed Frank Hitchcock, First Assistant Postmaster General, to 
line up the southern delegates for Taft. 14 Knowing that the South 
cast over one-third of the necessary votes for the nomination, Hitch- 
cock did his job well. Taft, his biographer maintained, was "permitted 
to know as little as possible about the harvesting of Southern dele- 
gates." 15 Regardless of Taft's cognizance or lack of it, he had the 
southern vote in the national convention in 1908. 

In the summer of 1908 Brown attended the North Carolina Repub- 
lican party's state convention. At the instigation of an Asheville Re- 
publican, Thomas Settle, Brown wrote a significant part of the party's 
platform. There, at first hand, he was able to see the methods by which 
the delegation to the national convention was chosen. Writing shortly 
thereafter Brown said, "I felt that Taft, though perhaps a fit man, was 

"William Garrott Brown, "Appointments and the Suffrage," Harper's Weekly, 
LIII (March 20, 1909), 4, hereinafter cited as Brown, "Appointments and the Suf- 
frage"; William Garrott Brown, "Mr. Hitchcock's Power," Harper's Weekly, LIII 
(May 21, 1909), 5, hereinafter cited as Brown, "Mr. Hitchcock's Power"; William 
Garrott Brown, "Taft's Southern Appointments," Harper's Weekly, LIII (May 29, 
1909), 4, hereinafter cited as Brown, "Taft's Southern Appointments"; William 
Garrott Brown, "The Referee System," Harper's Weekly, LIV (May 21, 1910), 4-5; 
Brown to William H. Taft's secretary, Charles W. Norton, October 13, 1910 (copy), 
and Brown to Taft, May 30, 1911 (copy), Brown Papers. 

"John Morton Blum, The Republican Roosevelt (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Har- 
vard University Press, 1954), 43-48. Blum concludes that "the one consistent, con- 
tinuing result of his [Roosevelt's] patronage policies was his surer control of the 
Republican party." 

"Fowler, The Cabinet Politician, 291-296; Henry F. Pringle, The Life and Times 
of William Howard Taft (New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 2 volumes, 1939), I, 347, 
hereinafter cited as Pringle, Life of Taft. 

"Pringle, Life of Taft, I, 347. 

324 The North Carolina Historical Review 

not fairly named, and democracy may require us to vote for Bryan," 16 
But this was probably Brown in a temporary mood of frustrated 
idealism. Bryan was simply too much of a "heretic" on monetary 
questions to satisfy Brown, who immediately set to work to persuade 
Taft to come South during his campaign. Taft had spoken in 1906 
at Greensboro. On that occasion he had appealed to Brown by de- 
nouncing the corrupt southern Republican machines and declaring 
that in states where no respectable party existed federal patronage 
should be given to Democrats. 17 Republican presidential nominees 
had fallen into the habit of bypassing the South in their campaigns. 
Brown deplored this because it demonstrated to southerners that the 
party had no real interest in the South. It is not known how influen- 
tial Brown was in Taft's decision to campaign in the South, but 
Brown wrote in 1908 that he had "set a number of influences at work 
to induce Taft to come South." 18 Taft did campaign in the South, and 
his total popular vote was larger in every southern state than Roose- 
velt's had been in 1904. During the campaign, Taft declared that he 
wished to be the president of the whole country, not just of half. This 
pleased Brown immensely, and after Taft's victory Brown arranged for 
Walter Hines Page, the North Carolina-born, New York editor, to 
meet Taft and persuade him to speak at a meeting of the North Caro- 
lina Society of New York. 19 Brown and Page were anxious for Taft to 
announce his "Southern policy." They were successful, and the presi- 
dent-elect spoke early in December, 1908, on the subject of "The 
South and the National Government." 20 

Taft's speech won Brown. The president-elect praised the past loyal- 
ties of the South and said that he was not going "to rehearse the 
painful history of reconstruction. . . ." He applauded the respectable 
Republican parties in the South and the movement to build up more 
such groups, and he guaranteed the region that the Fifteenth Amend- 
ment was not "inconsistent with the South's obtaining and maintaining 
what it regards as its political safety from the domination of an igno- 
rant electorate. . . ." 21 Soon Taft went South again; he made several 
speeches in which he attacked the southern Republican machines and 
"reiterated the shibboleths of White Supremacy." 22 Both Taft and 

10 Brown to Charles W. Thompson, June 23, 1908, Brown Papers. 
"Josephus Daniels, Editor in Politics (Chapel Hill: The University of North 
Carolina Press, 1941), 488. 

18 Brown to J. Elwood Cox, November 14, 1908, Brown Papers. 

19 Brown to William R. Thayer, November 13, 1908 (copy), Brown Papers. 

20 William Howard Taft, The South and the National Government (n. p., n. d.), Duke 
University Library, hereinafter cited as Taft, The South. 

21 Taft, The South, 11-15. 

22 Woodward, Origins of the New South, 468. 

William Garrott Brown 325 

Brown were optimistic in 1908. 

The increase of the Republican vote in the South in the election of 
1908, the high-sounding utterances of the new President, and the 
general optimism generated by the victory, prompted Brown to write 
more about southern Republicans in the pages of Harpers Weekly. 23 
Shortly after Taft's inaugural address in which he stated that he did 
not wish to be president of just half the country, Brown declared that 
"there is displayed a general interest in the Southern question as we 
have not seen matched in any President since Lincoln." 24 "The South," 
affirmed Brown on another occasion, "warmly responds to [the] 
challenge." 25 

Throughout the first months of Taft's administration Brown kept 
a close eye on Hitchcock's handling of the patronage and frequently 
warned the Postmaster General not to treat the South indifferently. 26 
But the President's early appointments in the South seemed further 
proof to Brown that Taft was sincere and honest. When in May, 1909, 
the new President appointed a conservative Democrat to the post of 
Commissioner for Internal Revenue for South Carolina, Brown ap- 
plauded. 27 His satisfaction mounted when Taft appointed Democrats 
to federal judgeships in Alabama. Taft's attitude and his southern 
appointments had "fairly knocked the breath out of more than one 
Southern Republican machine," Brown wrote. Furthermore, Brown 
stated that Taft had determined that "Southern Republican machines 
shall not be any longer." 28 

Brown viewed the election of 1908 as a milestone in southern poli- 
tical development. Thinking Taft to be serious in his desire to clean up 
the southern Republican machines, and believing that there was a 
significant drift of opinion in the South in favor of a revitalized Repu- 
blican party, Brown looked hopefully upon the large Republican gains 
in Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina. He noted that both 
Tennessee and North Carolina would have gone for Taft with the 
change of a few thousand votes. What a show of independence it 
would have been, Brown asserted, if North Carolina had gone Re- 

23 William Garrott Brown, "To William Howard Taft: Greetings," Harper's 
Weekly, LIII (March 6, 1909) , 6-9, hereinafter cited as Brown, "To William Howard 
Taft: Greetings." See also, William Garrott Brown, "President Taft's Opportunity," 
The Century, LXXVIII (June, 1909), 252-290, hereinafter cited as Brown, "Presi- 
dent Taft's Opportunity." 

24 William Garrott Brown, "Mr. Taft, the South, and the Negro," Harper's Weekly, 
LIII (March 20, 1909), 4. 

25 Brown, "To William Howard Taft: Greetings," 7. 

26 Brown, "Appointments and the Suffrage," 4; Brown, "Mr. Hitchcock's Power," 
5; Brown, "Taft's Southern Appointments," 4. 

27 William Garrott Brown, "He [Taft] Means What He Says," Harper's Weekly, 
LIII (May 29, 1909), 4. 

28 Brown, "Taft's Southern Appointments," 4. 

326 The North Carolina Historical Review 

publican. "The dramatic effect of such a coup would have been 
great." 29 And shortly after Taft's inauguration Brown predicted that 
"it is only a question of time until a majority in some southern state 
will favor the Republican party. . . ." 30 

The Taft administration, Brown contended, had a real opportunity 
to foster and nurture Republican sentiment in the South. Writing 
early in 1909, Brown stated that Taft should proclaim that southerners 
were safe to vote as they believed. They were to be safe because the 
Republican party was going to make its southern policies fair and 
honest. Brown went on to say that: 

It [the Republican party] cannot ask southern men to vote for policies 
they disapprove merely because it is desirable to have a live Republican 
party in the South, nor even because by turning Republican they can win 
for the South a stronger voice in national affairs. It cannot ask them to 
do more than vote as they believe. 31 

In the spring of 1910 Brown began what proved to be a fruitful 
and warm friendship with John M. Morehead, scion of a distinguished 
Tarheel family and a Republican in the United States House of Rep- 
resentatives. Thomas Settle, whom Brown had met in Asheville, and 
who had persuaded Brown to join the reform-minded Republicans, had 
written Morehead about Brown's feelings. Welcoming Brown to the 
Republican movement, Morehead wrote: 

I have heard so much of you through Settle and of your interest and 
potential activity in what I believe to be not only the right, but only 
effective solution of the North Carolina situation, that it does not come 
as from a stranger. 32 

Brown, Settle, and Morehead were in such complete agreement 
that Brown was given the task of writing the party platform for the 
state convention which was held at Greensboro in August, 1910. More- 
head had endeavored to persuade President Taft not to make any more 
federal appointments in North Carolina until the party could be re- 
organized. Writing in a vein that pleased Brown profoundly, More- 
head said: 

A reorganization of the party is essential to success at the polls for the 
reason (if for no other) that recruits will not come to us as long as the 

2B William Garrott Brown, "The New Republican Party in the South," Harper's 
Weekly, LIII (January 9, 1909), 5. 

30 Brown, "President Taft's Opportunity," 265. 

31 Brown, "President Taft's Opportunity," 270. 

82 John M. Morehead to Brown, March 8, 1910, Brown Papers. 

William Garrott Brown 327 

party has for its chief aspect of existence the control and dispensation of 
the patronage. It is believed . . . that this one feature constitutes seventy- 
five per cent of the Republican viewpoint and excuse for existence as the 
party is today. 33 

Shortly after the convention opened Brown presented the platform 
and it was accepted. The platform demonstrated Brown's ability to 
think and act on a national scale. As an orthodox Cleveland Democrat 
concerning the tariff, Brown personally never wavered in his belief that 
the tariff should exist only for revenue and not for protection. Yet when 
he designed the Republican party's platform he wrote: 

We renew our allegiance to the Republican policy of protection. The 
Southern States, and North Carolina in particular, have profited by that 
policy in the past, and have every reason to expect increased benefits 
from it in the future. 34 

Brown wrote in such a manner because he believed that the idea of 
a protective tariff would attract a significent number of new voters to 
the Republican party. He believed that there was a growing number 
of southerners who were becoming protectionists. His ability to write 
this plank suggests his conscientious and pragmatic approach to the 
concept of a two-party South. The platform ended on a high-sounding 
note by proclaiming that the North Carolina Republican party did 
not serve merely as a "machine for distributing federal offices and 
electing delegates to national conventions." 35 

The conduct of the southern Republican delegates in the national 
nominating conventions prompted Brown to single them out for frank 
criticism. He contended that the delegates were for sale and would 
support only the nominee who would promise the most patronage. 
Brown called their conduct in the conventions, "one of the worst of 
our open political scandals." "Plain patriotism," he repeatedly ad- 
monished his fellow southerners, "should set everyone against con- 
tinuing such a practice." 36 

In September, 1910, Brown began a series of interviews and cor- 
respondence about the southern situation with President Taft, through 
his personal secretary, Charles W. Norton. Fearing that Taft was 
losing his interests in rebuilding the Republican party in the South, 
Brown contended that Republican sentiment was increasing in the 
southern states. Pie pointed to the growth of southern industry and 

33 John M. Morehead to Brown, July 2, 1910, Brown Papers. 

84 North Carolina State Republican Platform, Brown Papers. 

85 North Carolina State Republican Platform, Brown Papers. 
38 Brown, "South in National Politics," 110. 

328 The North Carolina Historical Review 

to the concomitant demand for protection. He argued that the textile 
and iron industries had grown to such proportions in Louisiana and 
Alabama that protectionists were starting to make their voices heard. 37 

Brown thought there were discontented groups within the Demo- 
cratic party. He believed certain Gold Democrats had had enough of 
Bryanism and were ready to support a healthy Republican party. Two 
North Carolinians, John M. Morehead and Daniel A. Tompkins, 
Brown asserted, had already become out-and-out Republicans. Believ- 
ing that more southern people were eager to have the South shake off 
its political isolation, and that the disfranchisement of the Negro race 
had demonstrated that the Republican party had acquiesced in white 
supremacy, Brown argued that the time was ripe for a concerted effort 
to rebuild the Republican parties in the southern states. Taft and the 
Republican party should, in Brown's opinion, make clear that the 
South's interests would be recognized. 38 

Concerning federal patronage, Brown asserted that the quality of 
federal appointments in the South had degenerated steadily since 
1904. He stated that the practice of giving federal favors to assured 
delegates was occurring and that the person responsible was the Post- 
master General, Frank Hitchcock. Calling the southern conventions 
that selected delegates a "disgusting mockery of representative gov- 
ernment," Brown said: 

I will be perfectly candid, knowing that by so doing I risk any chance 
there may be of my suggestions being heeded, and add that the only 
person in Washington whom anyone can now suspect of playing the role 
[giver of federal patronage] is the Postmaster General. I do not believe 
that the President would knowingly condone the continuance of a practice 
he has so admirably denounced. 39 

Taft, cognizant of Brown's views and enthusiasm, answered, "I have 
never read an article that is so illuminating and satisfactory on the 
southern situation as your letter. I agree with you in every particu- 
lar." 40 Prompted by such kind and reassuring words from the chief 
executive, Brown decided upon a bold scheme that, had it been car- 
ried out, might have had some practical results. He proposed to 
Charles R. Miller, editor of The New York Times, that his newspaper 
should conduct a state-by-state investigation of the southern Repub- 
lican machines by a qualified newspaperman. Brown's part would en- 
tail writing a general introductory article, helping the reporter make 

37 Brown to Charles W. Norton, October 13, 1910 (copy) , Brown Papers. 
38 Brown to Charles W. Norton, October 13, 1910 (copy), Brown Papers. 
39 Brown to Charles W. Norton, October 13, 1910 (copy), Brown Papers. 
^William Howard Taft to Brown, November 3, 1910, Brown Papers. 

William Garrott Brown 329 

contact with influential men in each state, and writing a concluding 
article. Brown revealed his inclinations when he wrote that the job 
should be undertaken "by a high-class newspaper man (not a muck- 
raker), preferably one with Washington experience . . . [and] a south- 
erner." 41 

But The Times, reluctant to take on such a project, rejected the of- 
fer. Turning again to the President, Brown called on him to make a 
general announcement that no man was to use the power of patron- 
age to win favorable delegates. Furthermore, Brown would have had 
the President declare: 

If any such agreement or bargain is made, it will not be honored. If, in 
an application, for office, any such agreement or bargain is alleged, the 
allegation will be regarded as prima facie evidence of the unfitness of 
the applicant. Furthermore, the President desires to warn all federal 
office holders against neglecting their duties for unrelated political activi- 
ties, and against any and every improper and unfair use of their official 
positions in political contests. 42 

Brown believed that Taft could do this with complete political 
safety because the President would surely be nominated in 1912 and 
the real fight would come in the election. Taft's popular following, 
Brown continued, would be enhanced by this pronouncement. But 
apart from any and all practical considerations, he argued that "the 
step is demanded, as it has for years been demanded, by every con- 
sideration of fairness and square dealing." Moreover, ". . . it is right 
in itself, because the practices aimed at are wrong and mean and dan- 
gerous to our institutions/' 43 

To make certain that his proposal would reach Taft with good 
recommendations, Brown wrote Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Repub- 
lican from Massachusetts, Charles B. Hillus, one of Taft's personal 
secretaries, and A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant to the Secretary of the 
Treasury, sending to each a copy of his letter to Taft along with a 
request that he urge the President to give it his utmost attention. Each 
answered that he would. Lodge, who was aware of the southern situa- 
tion, answered: "I have been in many Republican conventions and I 
well know not only the character of the southern delegates but the 
part which they have played." He added that "In . . . [some] states 
there is no party at all except the office holders. 


41 Brown to Charles R. Miller, January 3, 1911, Brown Papers. 

42 Brown to William Howard Taft, May 29, 1911 (copy), Brown Papers. 

43 Brown to William Howard Taft, May 29, 1911 (copy) , Brown Papers. 

44 Henry Cabot Lodge to Brown, June 1, 1911, Brown Papers. 

330 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Taft's secretary, Hillus, replied that the President was pleased with 
the gains the party had made in North Carolina. He added that he was 
glad to know that Brown had had a leading role in the reorganization 
of that state's party. "I frequently said to the President that to my 
mind it was the most hopeful development in the South in our genera- 
tion. I have commended it to men of the right sort in other southern 
states." 45 

But Taft made no general announcement. He soon became aware 
of his need for those very southern delegates whom Brown so al- 
truistically demeaned. Theodore Roosevelt had thrown his hat into 
the ring. Roosevelt had made sure that Taft had the support of the 
southern delegates in 1908. William H. Taft wanted to make equally 
sure that Roosevelt did not have them in 1912. 

Brown realized by June, 1911, that Taft was not going to take any 
formal stand on his proposal. Assistant Secretary Andrew informed 
Brown that the President had spoken as if he agreed with the pro- 
posal, but that he was not willing "at the present moment" to commit 
himself to a "declaration that in all the southern states a radical change 
or policy was to prevail." 46 

Disappointed but undaunted, Brown continued writing weekly edi- 
torials condemning the southern Republican machines and began to 
reconsider an expose of the machines. 47 He began collecting informa- 
tion and evidence. From Texas Edward M. House, who was soon to 
become nationally prominent in the Wilson administration, answered 
that Cecil Lyon had been the sole distributor of federal patronage in 
Texas under both Roosevelt and Taft. House opined, "During the 
Roosevelt administration no man not named by Colonel Lyon was 
appointed and I think President Roosevelt himself said on one oc- 
casion that this was true." 48 

Alfred H. Stone, planter and author, whose book Studies in Ameri- 
can Race Relations charged that Roosevelt had used the "referee" sys- 
tem to his own advantage, 49 answered from Mississippi. Stone ad- 
mitted that he knew "next to nothing of his state's Republican ma- 
chine, but he offered to give all the assistance he could. 50 Through his 

45 Charles D. Hillus to A. Piatt Andrew, June 2, 1911, Brown Papers. 

"A. Piatt Andrew to Brown, June 18, 1911, Brown Papers. 

"William Garrott Brown, "The Tariff and the Southern Republicans," Harper's 
Weekly, LV (August 19, 1911), 4; William Garrott Brown, "Alabama's for Taft," 
Harper's Weekly, LV (September 16, 1911), 4; William Garrott Brown, "The In- 
surgents and the Southern Postmasters," Harper's Weekly, LV (November 18, 
1911), 5. 

^Edward M. House to Brown, December 14, 1911, Brown Papers. 

"Alfred H. Stone, Studies in American Race Relations (New York: Doubleday, 
Page and Company, 1908), 143. 

50 Alfred H. Stone to Brown, January 1, 1912, Brown Papers. 

William Garrott Brown 331 

own family connections, Brown knew about conditions in Alabama, 
and his intimate knowledge of North Carolina politics made him aware 
of the situation there. 

While writing to his friends for information, Brown had also been 
busy seeking a magazine or newspaper that would agree to conduct 
the investigation. Late in November, 1911, he stated his purpose can- 
didly when he proposed the plan to Harpers Weekly: to expose and 
break up the "old system of control by 'referee' and little cliques of 
office holders, maintained by swapping delegates for the right to 
distribute the federal patronage." 51 

But the editors of Harpers Weekly said they did not have the staff 
to undertake such a venture. Brown, however, was allowed to keep 
firing away in his weekly editorials at the southern Republican ma- 
chines and at the opponents of a revitalized Republican party. Taking 
dead aim, Brown caustically wrote: 

The mass of Southern Republican delegates chosen this year are not 
merely products of the same old methods employed in 1908. They are . . . 
the very same men or the same kind of men that have been coming up 
to the Republican conventions and naming Republican candidates for 
something like forty years. This scandal has been flagrant for decades, 
but this year it is so very flagrant that one cannot help hoping something 
will, at last, be done about it. 52 

Harpers Weekly was well known for its support of Woodrow Wil- 
son. The owner, George Harvey, had supported Wilson since 1906. 53 
Wilson was an appealing candidate to Brown as long as Wilson kept 
"safe" on monetary questions. This strong bias might help explain, 
along with Brown's general disappointment with Taft's southern 
policy, why Brown tore so savagely into the Republican party during 
the campaign of 1912. Once he wrote that the Republican leaders had 
been completely cognizant of the southern situation and that they 
had "striven ignobly among themselves for the personal profits of it. 
If their strife has at last aroused and disgusted the country, they have 
themselves alone to thank for their own and their party's shame." 54 

The presidential election of 1912 was a major event in the South's 
history, and Brown was fully aware of the election's significance. Both 
Wilson and Roosevelt could claim southern backgrounds and both 

51 Brown to Edward S. Martin, November 27, 1911, Brown Papers. 

62 William Garrott Brown, "The Scandal of the Southern Delegates," Harper's 
Weekly, LVI (May 25, 1912), 5, hereinafter cited as Brown, "The Scandal." 

53 Arthur S. Link, Wilson: The Road to the White House (Princeton, New Jersey: 
Princeton University Press, 1947), 359. 

64 Brown, "The Scandal," 5. 

332 The North Carolina Historical Review 

were determined to show their "southernness." Taft, so Brown be- 
lieved, had failed as president. In reality only one of the candidates 
would ever appeal to Brown, and that was the soft spoken, former 
president of Princeton, Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt was simply too 
radical for Brown. Considering the "Bull Moose" much more of a 
threat than Taft to Wilson's chances, Brown and Harpers Weekly de- 
voted themselves to stopping Roosevelt. Writing before the Republi- 
can convention met, Brown privately confessed: "I am not a Repub- 
lican, but have thought the most pressing duty of the moment was 
to smash Roosevelt, and have contributed my editorial mite chiefly 
to that end." 55 

Woodrow Wilson's election signified a return of the Democratic 
party, and more particularly of southerners, to national power. The 
isolation of the South had ended, and none was happier than the edi- 
torialist who had done all he could "to smash Roosevelt." Although 
Brown had little time left to enjoy the South's return to power, he 
was aware that Wilson's triumph was a portent of greater things for 
his region. Brown, however, was concerned with the South's respon- 
sibilities and whether the South would be able to act in a national 
manner. He hoped "the South . . . feels to the full the immense respon- 
sibility which it thus incurs." 56 

Brown warned the South that if it did not act responsibly and in a 
national manner, it could not hope to stay in power. Fearful lest the 
southerners not act as Americans, Brown urged: 

Let every Southerner at Washington take that view [to act as Americans] 
of his duties and his opportunities under the new dispensation, let the 
South itself, through its newspapers and other organs of public opinion, 
sustain its representatives in that attitude, and the country will not 
regret what it did election day. 57 

Which was more important to Brown, the return of the South to 
national political power, or the building up of a two-party South? 
He worked to revitalize the Republican party in the South as a pos- 
sible solution to the South's isolation. He was also keenly aware of 
the effect of a one-party system on southern society. That Brown was 
not simply desirous of southern political power can be proved by 
noticing an editorial he wrote early in 1913. Wilson had been elected 
and rumors were rife that several southerners were slated for Cabinet 

55 Brown to Jeremiah Smith, May 5, 1912, Brown Papers. 

56 William Garrott Brown, "The South and the Election," Harper's Weekly, LVI 
(November 16, 1912), 4, hereinafter cited as Brown, "The South and the Election." 

57 Brown, "The South and the Election," 4. 

William Garrott Brown 333 

positions. Well aware that the South's political isolation was over, 
Brown editorially castigated an Alabama newspaper, the Birmingham 
Ledger, for its statement that to speak of Republicans in the South 
was as funny as Mark Twain. The Ledger had contended that there 
were not enough Republicans in Alabama to "'hold a state conven- 
tion in a big hall!' " 58 

Brown saw nothing funny in this. After dismissing the Ledger as 
"not much of a paper," he tore into the South for its lethargy: 

... too many southern men and newspapers take the South's political 
situation [too lightly]. . . . Too many southern men and too many south- 
ern newspapers accept as final the present arrangement under which they 
are governed by one party. It was ridiculous, for instance, during the 
recent campaign to note how, in states perfectly certain to go Democratic, 
all orators and editors spend their mind and fury on the utterly hopeless 
Republican candidates, state and national, and avoid the real and import- 
ant issues between the factions and candidates of the dominant Demo- 
cratic party. 59 

This was the safe way, he explained, to keep out of trouble, and to 
make sure of being elected. The politicians and editors, he continued, 
wanted to keep their hold "on a too unanimous public." "We," Brown 
asserted, "are tempted to use Grant's language and say 'a too damned 
unanimous public/ " 60 

Charging on, Brown hit again at his favorite target, the "little 
cliques and machines" that controlled the Republican parties in the 
southern states. He went on to define what he considered to be the 
task of all true patriots in the South: ". . . no well-wisher of the South 
can be content to see its political life unhealthily different from the 
rest of the Union." 61 

Further proof of Brown's objectivity and vision may be found in 
his reactions to Wilson's Cabinet appointments. Pronouncing the 
Cabinet the "weakest in my recollection," he complained that too 
many southerners were being given high positions in the administra- 
tion. 62 In reply to House's assertion that the party was having a diffi- 
cult time finding good Democrats in the North and West, Brown re- 
plied that he knew of many qualified Democrats in Massachusetts 
alone. 63 

58 Quoted in William Garrott Brown, "The Republicans and the South," Harper's 
Weekly, LV (January 18, 1913), 4, hereinafter cited as Brown, "The Republicans and 
the South." 

59 Brown, "The Republicans and the South," 4. 
m Brown, "The Republicans and the South," 4. 

61 Brown, "The Republicans and the South," 4. 

62 Brown to E. S. Martin, March 2, 1913, Brown Papers. 

63 Brown to E. S. Martin, March 2, 1913, Brown Papers. 

334 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Early in April, 1913, Brown charged that Harpers Weekly was not 
criticizing the new administration enough. "In my judgment," he 
wrote, "we are coddling the administration too much . . . [and] we 
ought to live up to our promises to treat it just as we have others." 64 
But Brown never got the chance to see his suggestions carried out. 
Shortly after his remark the Weekly changed owners and he was noti- 
fied that the magazine would be changed radically. The sale shocked 
Brown who had grown to love his association with the magazine. His 
despondency and life were cut short, however, within a few months by 
a violent attack of his chronic tuberculosis which caused his death in 
October, 1913. 

William Garrott Brown lived to see only a partial fulfillment of his 
dream of a rejuvenated, politically powerful South. Brown was de- 
voted to a two-party South— that his dream of a strong, independent 
Republican party in Dixie has not been realized even today suggests 
the complexity of the problem he was trying to solve. Brown loved his 
region but he was not blind to some of its faults. His candid and 
forthright attempt to better the South has earned for him a high 
place in the roll of southerners who are true statesmen, capable of 
acting in a national manner, and who are, in the words of Sidney 
Lanier, "tall enough to see over the whole country." 

61 Brown to E. S. Martin, April 3, 1913, Brown Papers. 


By Thomas C. Parramore * 

On the morning of April 16, 1857, the Hertford County roads lead- 
ing into Murfreesboro were crowded with people on their way to wit- 
ness what, for many, was the spectacle of the decade: Jesse Jackson 
was going to launch his steamboat. Undeterred by a cold and disagree- 
able morning, "men, women and children came flocking into the 
borough on every road, in almost every kind of conveyance that the 
country affords." x The two female academies in Murfreesboro had 
declared a holiday for, after all, this was no ordinary launching. High 
and dry on her ways, the "Southern Star" was a 460-ton behemoth, 
the largest vessel ever seen in these waters; the largest ship ever built 
in North Carolina. By 11:00 a.m. the crowds were assembled on the 
banks of the Meherrin River at the launching site a short distance 
from town. After some oratory came the moment for the christening. 
Among the 4,000 spectators was Mrs. Jethro Darden who had ridden 
from Buckhorn that day for the occasion and who would describe the 
scene in her diary late that evening. "A goodly number of gentlemen," 
she wrote, "went on board, and as it moved off every one seemed to 
be huzzaing in a gay and lively tone, & just as the bottle was raised 
to be broken to sprinkle and name the boat, the underworks gave way. 
. . ." 2 With a sickening crunch the steamboat smacked into the Meher- 
rin's muddy bank. The "Southern Star" was an accursed ship. 

The slight damage caused by the errant launching of the steamer 
might have been only an untoward mishap had it not established a 
pattern for the history of this ill-fated vessel. For in years to come she 
was destined to bring ruin to her promoters and disaster to the very 
shores she had been designed to benefit. Maritime annals yield few 
parallels to the ironic story of Jesse Jackson's steamboat. 

* Dr. Parramore is Assistant Professor in the Department of History and Political 
Science, Meredith College, Raleigh. 

1 Daily Express (Petersburg, Virginia), April 25, 1857, hereinafter cited as Daily 

2 Diary of Anne Dillard Darden, 1857, in possession of Mrs. Ethleen Vick Under- 
wood, Murfreesboro. The "Lytle List" enumerates 26 other steamboats built in North 
Carolina before 1857, the largest being 264 tons. Forrest R. Holdcamper (ed.)» Mer- 
chant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1807-1868, "The Lytle List" compiled by 
William Lytle (Mystic, Connecticut: The Steamship Historical Society of America, 

336 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Jesse Andrew Jackson came to Hertford County shortly before 1850 
from Manasquan, New Jersey. 3 An "adventurous and visionary man," 
he ran a country store for a while at Parker's Landing on Meherrin 
River, 4 later established a sawmill on the Meherrin just opposite Mur- 
freesboro, 5 and at length opened a brickkiln there. 6 The latter enter- 
prise, coinciding with the establishment of two female academies in 
Murfreesboro— one by the Baptists and the other by the Methodists- 
earned Jackson a handsome profit. 7 By 1855 he had enough capital 
to turn his active mind to more ambitious projects, and it was then 
that he conceived the idea of building a steamboat. 

In October, 1855, evidently on Jackson's initiative, a group of the 
wealthiest farmers and merchants in the county assembled at Mur- 
freesboro to set the project in motion. The challenge they faced was 
amply set forth in the preamble of a charter agreed upon that day: 

Whereas the citizens of the Eastern part of North Carolina, and par- 
ticularly those residing near, or bordering on the Albemarle Sound and 
Chowan river, and there [sic] tributaries has for a searies [sic'] of years, 
and yet continue to suffer great privation and heavy losses in regard to 
our Export and Import commerce, there seems to be but little, if any 
hope of Improvement for our relief. Although we have Extensive inland 
navigation . . . yet it would seem that ... we must continue to submit 
to the present vexacions and Expenses since we can get no better inlet 
than that which nature has given us. 8 

The tone of resentment was anything but accidental. Almost thirty 
years had passed since Murfreesboro petitioners had called the atten- 
tion of the state government to the fact that Ocracoke Inlet, their only 
avenue to the sea, was "so obstructed by shoals, that no vessel draw- 
ing more than seven feet of water, can pass without being lightened 
of a portion of its cargo/' 9 The state legislature, while admitting 

3 Letters of Edgar Allan Jackson, Sept. 7, 1860-April 15, 1863, North Carolina 
Collection, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, hereinafter cited as 
Letters of Edgar Allan Jackson. The pamphlet bears the name of no editor or place 
and date of publication. 

4 John Wheeler Moore, "Historical Sketches of Hertford County, Chapter LXI," 
Albemarle Inquirer (Murfreesboro), January 24, 1878, hereinafter cited as Albe- 
marle Inquirer. 

5 Benjamin Brodie Winborne, Colonial and State Political History of Hertford 
County (Raleigh: Edwards and Broughton Printers, 1906), 192. 

6 Albemarle Inquirer, January 24, 1878. 

7 Albemarle Inquirer, January 24, 1878. 

8 "Charter, By Laws and Proceedings of the North Carolina and New York Steam- 
boat Company." Ms. in possession of Frank Roy Johnson, Murfreesboro, hereinafter 
cited as "Charter, By Laws and Proceedings." 

9 Memorial of Sundry Inhabitants of Murfreesborough, N. Carolina, Praying that 
a Passage be Made between Ocracoke Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean, Twentieth Con- 
gress, First Session (Washington, D.C.: Duff Green, 1828), North Carolina Col- 
lection, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, hereinafter cited as 
Memorial of Sundry Inhabitants. 

Fate of the "Southern Star" 337 

that the bar at Ocracoke cost North Carolina a million dollars a year, 
nevertheless declined to spend $60,000 to deepen the inlet by three 
feet. 10 Subsequent appeal to the federal government also failed. 11 In 
1855 the obstruction was still there, though the cost to North Carolina 
farms and businesses had risen enormously. 

As the charter went on to note, recent advances in marine engineer- 
ing had given rise to a new hope for relief: 

Since the introduction of steam propelling suited to navigation similar 
to ours and yet good seaboats if properly constructed, It is confidently 
believed by competent Judges that a boat of this class can be successfully 
and profitably maintained between this place and New York, Imbracing 
on her outward and inward trips, when sufficient freight to Justify — the 
intermediate landings and towns below this place including Edenton and 
Plymouth, N. C. 12 

By the terms of the charter, members of the Murfreesboro group 
that day pledged some $25,000 and the creation of a joint stock com- 
pany to build a shallow-draft steamship. The principal promoters 
were, besides Jackson, Murfreesboro merchants John W. Southall, 
John G. Wilson, and B. A. Capehart, riverboat captain Hiram Free- 
man, Winton shipowner John Andrew Anderson, legislators Kenneth 
Rayner and John Parker Jordan, and Thomas and Henry Gatling, 
elder brothers of the noted inventor, Richard Gatling. 13 A sizable 
portion of the stock was also subscribed by the New York commission 
house of Glines and Graham, which presumably would supervise the 
northern end of the steam line. Southall was named agent for the 
receipt of funds until permanent officers could be appointed. 14 

The steamboat company progressed rapidly. Meeting at Winton 
February 14, 1856, the group chose a board of directors and voted to 
name themselves "The North Carolina and New York Steamboat 
Company/' Jesse Jackson was authorized to procure labor and ma- 
terials, plans and specifications for the projected ship; an initial as- 
sessment of one-tenth of the value of subscribed shares was levied 

10 Report Relative to Occracock Inlet (Raleigh: Lawrence and Lemay, 1827). 

11 Memorial of Sundry Inhabitants. 

™ "Charter, By Laws and Proceedings." 

""Charter, By Laws and Proceedings." Others were James M. Wynns, Jacob C. 
Sharp, Lemuel R. Jernigan, William I. Harrell, John Davidson, James L. Johnston, 
G. C. Taylor, Charles E. Sparks, J. B. N. Cuffington, Joseph Mizell, James C. Free- 
man, John K. Kirkman, Alfred H. Lecke, Joseph H. Harrell, and Richard Griffith. 

14 The Democratic Pioneer (Elizabeth City), December 4, 1855. Quoting from the 
Murfreesboro Gazette, the paper noted that the stock of the company was "becoming 
very popular" and that "citizens in the lower and central portions of the county are 
taking rank hold of the enterprise, and their energy gives an encouraging earnest 
of the realization of our hopes in the establishment of the line." 

338 The North Carolina Historical Review 

on the stockholders. 15 A month later, the board of directors ordered 

to proceed to Wilmington Del. and obtain suitable workmen to draw draft, 
make moddle [sic] and moulds for the contemplated Boat and make 
necessary arrangements for building the same, Leave draft for the Boat 
with some house or company in Wilmington Del. for machinery, but no 
definite contract to be closed for the present. It is further ordered that 
sd. J. A. Jackson be authorized to procure and make other necessary 
arrangements for boarding the workmen engaged in getting timber and 
building the boat. Also ordered that John G. Wilson be authorized to 
make & obtain Pork & other necessaries that may be wanting to board 
the hands. 16 

Jackson, an indefatigable legman, within a month procured from 
Betts, Pusey and Company in Wilmington plans for two engines and 
acquired the services of New York shipwright John A. Kirkman to 
supply hull plans and supervise the construction of the ship. By 
March, 1856, the company was ready to apply to the General As- 
sembly for an act of incorporation. When the company held its first 
regular annual meeting at Winton in June, the first loads of white 
oak timber had been delivered to Jackson's sawmill and the directors, 
apparently on Kirkman's recommendation, voted to issue $3,000- 
$5,000 additional stock to have the steamer copper-fastened rather 
than iron-fastened as originally planned. 17 

Without warning, the firm of Glines and Graham in the fall, 1856, 
went into bankruptcy, having paid only $400 of a stock subscription of 
$8,000, a severe blow to the financial integrity of the steamship com- 
pany. 18 Soon afterward, John G. Wilson, president of the company, 
ominously withdrew from his involvement— and other stockholders 
began to grow restive over the security of their commitments. It was 
a shaky organization that the legislature in December authorized to 
operate its steamboat 

and such other steamers as the want of the company may require from 
time to time, Employ them in carrying passengers and freight in and 
between the waters of North Carolina and New York with the privilege 
of running to and from other parts of the United States and the West 
India Islands and parts of the Gulf of Mexico and Central America as 
may appear Expedient for the interest and well being of the company. 19 

15 The board of directors consisted of Wilson, Southall, Anderson, Wynns, Jackson, 
Hiram Freeman, and M. R. Glines. "Charter, By Laws and Proceedings." 

16 "Charter, By Laws and Proceedings." 

17 "Charter, By Laws and Proceedings." 

18 Albemarle Inquirer, January 24, 1878. 

19 Copy of Act of incorporation in "Charter, By Laws and Proceedings." 

Fate of the "Southern Star" 


The "Southern Star." From Harper's Magazine. 

Somehow the "North Carolina and New York Steamboat Company" 
moved forward. Sam Wheeler, writing to the Petersburg (Virginia) 
Daily Express, observed that Jesse Jackson had "waded through 
difficulties in the accomplishment of the work, that would have de- 
terred many a man of less nerve." 20 At the beginning of April the 
ship was almost completed and April 16 was announced as launching 

The launching itself capped the climax of Jackson's misfortunes. 
Wesleyan Academy president James Davis, casting a philosophical 
eye over the scene that day, observed: "The steamship moved off 
gracefully at first, but the supporters sunk near the water and she 
sunk with them. How uncertain human events. Our earthly props 
sink and we sink with them/' 21 Murfreesboro made the best of a 
bad business that afternoon with a dinner in honor of the builders 
at the St. Nicholas Hotel, highlighted by champagne toasts, "some 

20 Daily Express, April 13, 1857. "The inauguration of this new communication," 
added Wheeler, "will tend very much to resuscitate the commerce of the Albemarle 
region, which of late years has dwindled to an inconsiderable tonnage. . . ." 

21 Diary of James H. Davis, April 16, 1857, Southern Historical Collection, The 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

340 The North Carolina Historical Review 

of a valedictory, sad character, and some of a very jocular and very 
laughable sort," 22 including an irrespressible Irishman's rousing in- 
vocation: "May the Divil never catch a sailor dead nor alive." 23 

The "Southern Star" was soon afterward floated but misfortune 
seemed to hang over her like a pall. On April 20 little James 
Worthington, playing on the deck with schoolmates, plunged head- 
long through a hatch and "fell striking his head foremost on the hard 
timbers, nothing breaking the force of his fall." 24 The little fellow suf- 
fered a concussion but recovered. Within a few weeks the steamboat 
company collapsed altogether. Years later, historian John Wheeler 
Moore recalled that "the North Carolina stockholders, fearful that their 
investments would end in loss, stopped their advancements. Poor Jesse 
Jackson got into a sea of troubles. Suits and demands thickened upon 
him." 25 Finally, in late October, the ship was ignominiously auction- 
ed off at the sheriff's sale and the dream of steam connections with 
New York vanished. 26 Yet the mischief wreaked by the ship had 
scarcely commenced. 

The "Southern Star" was purchased by Southall and Captain 
Thomas W. Badger, an Eastern Shore Virginian who had recently 
been in the public eye for his gallant role in the sinking of the steam- 
ship "Central America." 27 Late in the year Southall and Badger 
arranged to have their ship towed to Wilmington, Delaware, where, 
during the winter, her two 80-horsepower inclined engines were in- 
stalled. Placed "athwartships" and geared to a screw propeller, the 
unit would give the ship a cruising speed of five knots an hour and 
a top speed of eight knots. 28 

In the summer of 1858 the "Southern Star" made her maiden 
cruise to Norfolk, Virginia, for caulking, finishing touches on her 
upper works, and a check of her machinery. The editor of the Norfolk 
Argus thought that she was "well built . . . and does credit to all 
concerned in her construction," 29 adding that Captain Badger in- 
tended to operate her between Norfolk and New York. Fate, however, 
decreed a new alteration in the destinies of the steamer. 

22 Daily Express, April 25, 1857. 

23 Daily Express, April 25, 1857. 
2 ^ Daily Express, May 2, 1857. 
^'Albemarle Inquirer, January 24, 1878. 

26 Albemarle Inquirer, January 24, 1878. 

27 Albemarle Inquirer, January 24, 1878. The "Central America" had gone down 
off Hatteras in a storm on September 12, 1857. 

^Richard Rush and Others (eds.), Official Records of the Union and Confederate 
Navies in the War of the Rebellion (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 
30 volumes, 1894-1921) , Series II, I, 68, hereinafter cited as Official Records, Union 
and Confederate Navies. 

29 Southern Argus (Norfolk, Virginia), August 20, 1858, hereinafter cited as 
Southern Argus. 

Fate of the "Southern Star" 


In late 1885 the U.S.S. "Water Witch," surveying a channel on 
the coast of Paraguay, was fired on from shore batteries and the 
ship's helmsman was killed. Subsequently, President James Buchanan 
sought through diplomatic channels to secure redress and was at 
length reduced to outfitting a squadron of warships to impose by 
force what could not be obtained by negotiation. In September, 1858, 
it was announced that the "Southern Star" had been chartered by the 
government for the Paraguay expedition, 30 so hard-pressed was the 
Navy for seaworthy warships. She was hurriedly taken to the Norfolk 

Commander John Newland Maffitt. From the files of the State Department of 
Archives and History. 

Navy Yard and converted to a cruiser by the installation of twelve- 
and thirty-two-pounder cannon. Captain Alexander M. Pennock was 
placed in command and in early February, 1859, she sailed for 
Barbados, en route to the River Plate. 31 Though suffering some dam- 
age to her machinery on the cruise south, the ship proved herself a 
good sailer and in the spring the government decided to purchase 
her outright for $49,000. 32 The "Southern Star" was renamed the 

30 Southern Argus, September 22, 1858. 

31 Southern Argus, November 9, 1858. 

32 Southern Argus, April 12, 1859. 

342 The North Carolina Historical Review 

"Crusader" and thus began the most illustrious phase of her career. 

On June 11, 1859, the command of the "Crusader" fell to a brilliant 
veteran naval officer, Lieutenant John Newland Maffitt. 33 The choice 
was a particularly appropriate one since Maffitt had spent four years 
of his life in Fayetteville and regarded himself as a North Carolinian. 
For a few months Maffitt was assigned only to running errands: up 
the Mississippi in quest of suspected filibusters and down to Pen- 
sacola for a new deck. But late in the year the "Crusader" was dis- 
patched to the West Indies to patrol for vessels employed in the 
illegal slave trade. It was an arduous, thankless assignment, for Maffitt 
was required to pursue and investigate practically every ship that 
appeared in the much-frequented West Indian routes. But there was 
a correspondent of the New York Herald on board in May, 1860, 
when the hour of glory struck for the "Crusader." 

Lieutenant Maffitt had run down and investigated 60 vessels in a 
week without finding anything suspicious— indeed he had discovered 
no slavers since taking up the station— when, on May 23, a flagless 
square-rigger was sighted slipping along the Old Bahama Channel. 34 
The "Crusader" quickly overhauled the vessel and with a shot across 
the bow brought her up short. On boarding, Maffitt immediately real- 
ized from the stench that she was a slaveship. The surly French master 
refused to make any sort of identification, but his fetid holds yielded 
up some 450 of the human cargo he had brought from the African 
coast. Taking his prize in tow, Maffitt steamed into Key West and 
the excited Herald correspondent telegraphed to New York a dra- 
matic account of the capture. 35 "From pulpit and editorial page came 
plaudits for the naval officer whose vigilance had rescued the un- 
fortunate Negroes from bondage." 36 

What could Jesse Jackson and the Hertford County promoters of 
the "Southern Star" have thought of her being acclaimed for purposes 
alien to the region that conceived her? Yet, in the drift of the nation 
toward civil conflict, the "Crusader" would soon be put to uses still 
more repugnant to North Carolina's interests. The cup of Jesse Jack- 
son's bitterness had not yet overflowed. 

The secession of the southern states had already begun when, in 
January, 1861, Maffitt took his ship into Mobile to cash a check for 
prize money, "drawn, as was customary, on the Collector of the Port 

33 Emma Martin Maffitt, The Life and Services of John Newland Maffitt (New 
York: The Neale Publishing Company, 1906), 206. 

34 Edward Boykin, Sea Devil of the Confederacy: The Story of the Florida and her 
Captain, John Newland Maffitt (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1959), 67, herein- 
after cited as Boykin, Sea Devil of the Confederacy. Maffitt's parents were en route 
from Ireland when he was born at sea. 

85 Boykin, Sea Devil of the Confederacy, 67. 
88 Boykin, Sea Devil of the Confederacy, 67. 

Fate of the "Southern Star" 343 

and payable to the officers and crew of the warship/' 37 True to his 
North Carolina allegiance, Maffitt was still officially loyal to the 
union, but the appearance of his ship at Mobile generated a furore of 
excitement. Alabama, just six days short of secession, was in a belli- 
cose frenzy that was not likely to be dissipated by the appearance of 
a federal warship. Amid rumors that she was "armed to the teeth" 
and about to seize the city, payment of the prize check was at first 
refused. 38 Maffitt received veiled suggestions that he should proffer 
his vessel to the Confederacy. When this was rebuffed there were 
rumors that boarding parties meant to storm the ship, a threat Maffitt 
met with the rejoinder that he would "shoot the first man that touches 
her/' 39 The rebel ardor now cooled sufficiently to allow for the cash- 
ing of the prize check and Maffitt was glad to weigh anchor and 
leave Mobile Bay. 

Lieutenant Maffitt's refusal to dishonor his uniform was no in- 
dication of his politics. In February he sailed the "Crusader" to New 
York and, anticipating North Carolina's secession, handed over his 
ship at Greenpoint Navy Yard and resigned his commission. 40 In 
the next four years he was to distinguish himself as one of the finest 
blockade-runners in the Confederate Navy. 

The "Crusader" was taken over by Lieutenant T. Augustus Craven, 
long an intimate of Maffitt but firmly loyal to the Union. Craven was 
soon ordered to the Carolina coast and the "Crusader" spent much 
of the war patrolling the coast whose prosperity Jesse Jackson had 
meant her to enhance. In eastern North Carolina her progress was 
ruefully followed by those who built her. The Petersburg Daily 
Express, sourly noting in July that the "Crusader" had been dispatch- 
ed from Fort Pickens in pursuit of the Confederate war steamer 
"Sumter," voiced the hope that the "Sumter" would meet the Yankee 
cruiser "and send her to Davey Jones' locker." 41 

While the "Crusader" joined in the ravishment of the Carolina sea- 
board, her Murfreesboro builders languished. "Jesse Jackson," ac- 
cording to John W. Moore, "never recovered from the blow received 
in his great disappointment." 42 His eighteen-year-old son, Edgar 
Allan Jackson, was killed at Chancellorsville in May, 1863. 43 "Fresh 

37 Boykin, Sea Devil of the Confederacy, 67. 
88 Boykin, Sea Devil of the Confederacy, 34. 

39 Boykin, Sea Devil of the Confederacy, 34. Maffitt for a time commanded the Ram 
"Albemarle," built at Edward's Ferry on Roanoke River, within 30 miles of the 
launching site of the "Crusader" at Murfreesboro. 

40 Boykin, Sea Devil of the Confederacy, 38. 

41 Daily Express, July 18, 1861. The paper added that the "Crusader" had "the 
temerity to come up to Petersburg three or four years ago, and was tightly stuck 
in the bottom of the Appomatox for several days." 

42 Albemarle Inquirer, January 24, 1878. 

43 Letters to Edgar Allan Jackson. 

344 The North Carolina Historical Review 

disasters," wrote Moore, "came upon him and after years of unavail- 
ing struggle, at the end of the . . . war he left our county to seek 
his bread in other quarters. He had not taken fortune at its flood 
and in disaster alas! found too few to do him reverence ." 44 

The "Crusader" ended an honorable service on June 12, 1865, at 
Washington Navy Yard when she was taken out of commission. Six 
weeks later she was sold at auction to T. P. Morgan for $9,000. 45 
Redocumented the "Kalorama," she reverted to commercial service 
but about 1875 was sold to a firm on the west coast and successfully 
undertook the long voyage around Cape Horn. On March 30, 1877, 
the "Kalorama" burned and sank near her home port, San Francisco. 

The "Southern Star" had been doomed from her inception. Had she 
remained in North Carolina she would have been pressed into service 
by the Confederacy like all the other steamers in Albemarle waters 
and would doubtless have shared the common catastrophe of those 
vessels when Louis M. Goldsborough's fleet swept into the sounds 
early in 1862. The problems of coastal transportation for which she 
was designed were not resolved until this century with good rail and 
highway routes throughout eastern North Carolina. Her construction, 
however, was achieved by an initiative and enterprise rare enough to 
be notable in the climactic years of the ante-bellum South. 

u Albemarle Inquirer, January 24, 1878. 

45 Official Records, Union and Confederate Navies, Series II, I, 68. 


Carolina Cradle: Settlement of the Northwest Carolina Frontier, 1747- 
1762. By Robert W. Ramsey. (Chapel Hill: The University of North 
Carolina Press. 1964. Introduction, preface, illustrations, appendixes, 
index. Pp. xiii, 251. $6.00.) 

Carolina Cradle is a major contribution to the vast body of litera- 
ture attempting to define and explain the concept of the American 
frontier. It is a study in depth of the settlement of one segment of the 
North Carolina frontier— that portion of eighteenth-century Rowan 
County that lay between the Yadkin and Catawba rivers. 

According to the introduction, Professor Hugh T. Lefler considers 
Carolina Cradle to be "one of the really outstanding works on North 
Carolina." This reviewer agrees completely with Professor Lefler's 
evaluation. This reviewer also cannot praise too highly the extra- 
ordinarily thorough research done by the author. It must have been 
a herculean task to locate, assemble and evaluate the many docu- 
ments needed to relate the story of this migration to the eighteenth- 
century Carolina frontier. The author has made extensive use of 
passenger lists, deeds and deed books, birth and death records, tax 
lists, will books, court records, manuscript collections, tavern license 
papers, and numerous other records located in state and local archives 
from New Jersey to North Carolina. 

Professor Ramsey's work should serve as a prototype for similar 
studies of other areas and other periods for years to come. He is 
correct in pleading for additional research in Colonial history to 
emphasize the "exploitation of the land, and the eighteenth-century 
evolution of family relationships, clan loyalties, and a cultural homo- 
geneity which in countless cases spanned at least three generations, 
two continents, and a half-dozen American colonies!" 

The University of North Carolina Press has printed the volume 
in an attractive and readable format. Historians, students, and gen- 
ealogists should find the work both interesting and useful reading. 

John Edmond Gonzales 
University of Southern Mississippi 

346 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Jonathan Worth: A Biography of a Southern Unionist. By Richard L. 
Zuber. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. 1965. 
Illustrations, notes, index. Pp. vii, 351. $7.50.) 

< The life of Jonathan Worth of North Carolina was a study in 
paradox. He was of the religious faith most closely identified with 
abolitionism— the Quakers— yet he was a slaveowner. He sponsored 
the bill in the North Carolina legislature most frequently associated 
with Jacksonian Democracy, a bill for the creation of a public school 
system, yet he was a stanch Whig in politics. He was an outspoken 
opponent of nullification and of secession, which he denounced as 
madness and suicide, and he was a crypto-Unionist in the wartime 
administration of Governor Zebulon Vance, yet he rendered vital 
service to the Confederate government of the state. 

Ironically, the climax of this lifelong Unionist's public career came 
in his capacity as governor of North Carolina during the early years 
of Reconstruction. In this position, Worth became an implacable 
opponent of the interference by the Freedmen's Bureau in what he 
considered to be state affairs exclusively. When North Carolina was 
placed under military rule by the Radicals, Worth obeyed the orders 
of the commanding generals, but he did so grudgingly, for he re- 
sented the entire program as an invasion of the state's consitutional 
rights. Believing that Negro suffrage would create an administration 
based "upon ignorance instead of intelligence," he opposed the ratifi- 
cation of the Fourteenth Amendment and advised North Carolina 
voters to boycott the state elections held in 1868 under Radical 
auspices. Finally, Worth was removed from office by General E. R. S. 
Canby, and was replaced by the newly elected scalawag, William 
W. Holden. 

Mr. Zuber's biography faithfully traces Worth's career through its 
stages as Quaker youth, kind husband and father, successful business- 
man, farsighted state legislator, effective wartime state treasurer, 
Reconstruction governor, declining years, and death. The intricacies 
and vicissitudes of Civil War finance are painstakingly analyzed in 
showing Worth's role as a successful state treasurer. The most in- 
teresting part of the book, however, is that dealing with Worth's 
career as Reconstruction governor. Here the strongest crosscurrents 
of his being clashed— his conflicting sentiments of Unionism and state 
rights— and his southern upbringing asserted itself as the prevailing 
influence of his life. 

Book Reviews 347 

This is a sober book about a sober man. Written with careful re- 
search and commendable objectivity, it is a valuable addition to the 
literature of southern biography. 

Charles P. Roland 

Tulane University 

Trinity and Duke, 1892-1924 : Foundations of Duke University. By Earl 
W. Porter. (Durham : Duke University Press. 1964. Illustrations, notes, 
index. Pp. xiii, 274. $7.50.) 

In treating the evolution of a particular institution—Trinity College 
and its metamorphosis into Duke University— Earl W. Porter illus- 
trates the development of institutions generally. In the case of Trinity 
and Duke, the study describes a nexus of idealism on the part of a 
small group of educators and scholars, the practical yet farsighted 
financial support of a very few industrialists-philanthropists, and the 
pressing needs and desires for more education typical in the New 
South at the time. Central to the story is the Methodists' long-ex- 
pressed and growing concern for education, an important factor in 
shaping the character of the institution. 

Earl Porter, an alumnus of Duke and now assistant to the president 
of the University of Illinois, has obviously enjoyed his investigation 
of the evolution of Trinity down to the creation of Duke University, 
and his readers will share his pleasures, aided by his readable style, 
an excellent index, and a thorough bibliography that shows Porter's 
diligence as researcher and scholar. 

Although the main body of the study commences in 1892 with the 
move of Trinity from a small village near High Point to Durham, 
Dr. Porter properly devotes an introductory chapter to a summary 
of Nora C. Chaffin's earlier account of Trinity's beginnings in 1839 
down to 1892 and to John F. Crowell who as president had the vision 
of greatness for Trinity, infusing his small faculty with enthusiasm 
for excellence in education while recognizing Trinity's need to serve 
North Carolina and Methodism. 

The main story of Trinity's maturation between 1892 and 1924 
deals with the early poverty of the institution, the growing generosity 
of the Dukes, the attempt by Josephus Daniels and others to oust 
John Spencer Bassett from the chair of history, the effect of the 
1917-1918 war on the college, and the postwar moves toward uni- 
versity status. 

348 The North Carolina Historical Review 

In the Bassett affair of 1903 lies this reviewer's only suggestion for 
major modification. The Bassett incident, important though it is, re- 
ceives disproportionately large treatment— the longest chapter— com- 
pared to the whole story of Trinity's evolution. 

Unobtrusively Dr. Porter deals with the prosaic facets and minutiae 
of academic evolution: administrative organization and function, en- 
rollments, curriculum development, faculty growth and teaching 
loans, and professional salaries. 

Most important, however, the study is an account of the growth 
of ideas about higher education. It might well be subtitled: Aspira- 
tions to Greatness. When Trinity became Duke University in 1924, 
John F. Crowell wrote across thirty years of physical separation from 
the institution: "'Let no petty narrowness from any quarter ever lay 
its cold, freezing hand upon those who aspire to make a great and 
noble institution/" Earl Porter's book shows how Trinity successfully 
fought off the forces that might have made her little and mediocre. 

Wesley H. Wallace 

The University of North Carolina 
at Chapel Hill 

Biographical Directory of the Senate of South Carolina, 1776-1964. By- 
Emily Bellinger Reynolds and Joan Reynolds Faunt. (Columbia, South 
Carolina: Archives Department. 1964. Pp. ix, 358. $5.50.) 

The South Carolina Archives Department has published a useful 
book on the Palmetto State Senate. The authors, a mother and 
daughter, have joined their talents to produce a source book on all 
matters pertaining to the upper house of South Carolina's General 
Assembly. Mrs. Beynolds was an employee of the General Assembly 
for many years before she became State Librarian of her native 
state. Her daughter, Mrs. Faunt, has published works on South Caro- 
lina history. 

Part of this material appeared previously as The Senate of the 
State of South Carolina, 1776-1962. The authors begin with a sum- 
mary of the evolution of the Senate through seven constitutions. 
Changes in the boundaries of election districts are described and 
shown on three maps. A list of governors, lieutenant governors, presi- 
dents and presidents pro tempore of the Senate and clerks of the 
Senate is followed by the dates for each General Assembly since 
1776, the names of members of the upper house, and the districts 

Book Eeviews 349 

each senator represented. At the end there is an alphabetical list of 
senators with their election districts and dates of service. 

New material in this book consists of some 1,400 biographical 
sketches of all the persons who have ever served in South Carolina's 
Senate. Forty-one of these men served their state as governor. Many 
were congressmen. Two were cabinet members and two were presi- 
dential candidates. There are generals and farmers, nabobs and 
demagogues. There was only one woman, Mrs. Mary Gordon Ellis, 
who represented Jasper County, 1928-1932. 

Some sketches are little masterpieces of compressed history. As an 
example, see the piece on Morgan Brown, native North Carolinian. 
Or look at the entry for William Dalrymple Johnson, another erst- 
while Tarheel. This is the raw material of history, valuable to gen- 
ealogists and historians alike. Palmetto senators have relatives in 
every southern state. 

The authors took more than eight years to complete research for 
this book. They acknowledge aid from personnel in the South Caro- 
lin Archives Department, many libraries, senatorial research com- 
mittees, and from descendants of their subjects. Their exhaustive 
research will facilitate future investigation into the history of South 

Daniel M. McFarland 

Madison College 

Mr. Crump of Memphis. By William D. Miller. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana 
State University Press. 1964. Illustrations, index. Pp. xii, 373. $6.75.) 

Born in Holly Springs, Mississippi, in 1874, Edward Hull Crump 
migrated in early manhood to nearby Memphis where in the course 
of time he became one of the most controversial figures in twentieth- 
century Tennessee history. First entering business and later politics, 
he won election to a number of municipal offices, including several 
terms as mayor, and in addition served two terms in Congress during 
the early years of the New Deal. Though ousted from the mayoralty 
in 1915, he retained power behind the scenes in city and county 
politics, through the organization he had built up while in office, to 
an extent that for many years he could be characterized as a leading 
example of that unique type of bossism that has flourished in Ameri- 
can municipal government. 

350 The North Carolina Historical Review 

In preparing the first biography of "Boss" Crump, William D. Mil- 
ler, formerly a professor at Memphis State University, had access to 
Crump's personal papers, unrestricted, he says, except by "the family's 
overriding expressed interest, stated at the outset, to see that the 
project was reasonably performed." Nevertheless, the author has dealt 
with his subject in a friendly manner. While making it clear that Crump 
was in supreme command of a smooth-running and sometimes repres- 
sive political machine for twenty or more years, Professor Miller denies 
or dismisses as slanders and unjust rumors many of the charges that 
were brought against Crump on numerous occasions. The emerging 
portrait, if not entirely uncritical, is at least sympathetic, placing the 
subject in the same category as the reform mayors Samuel "Golden 
Rule" Jones of Toledo and Tom Johnson of Cleveland, in contrast to 
the rather widely accepted stereotype of Crump as a typical self-seek- 
ing city boss. 

A number of minor errors could have been prevented by a better 
knowledge of Tennessee history and geography. Burgin E. Dossett 
later became but was not then "president of one of the state teachers' 
colleges" when he ran for governor in 1936 (p. 232); E. W. (Ned) 
Carmack (evidently confused with George Carmack) was a Murfrees- 
boro, not "a Knoxville newspaper editor" (p. 317); and Shelby ville, 
the home of Governor Prentice Cooper, is by no means in "west Ten- 
nessee" (p. 250). 

James W. Patton 

The University of North Carolina 
at Chapel Hill 

The Whole & True Discouerye of Terra Florida. By Jean Ribaut. Intro- 
duction by David L. Dowd. (Gainesville: University of Florida Press 
[Facsimile Edition]. 1964. Illustrations, notes, index. Pp. lxvi, 139. 

The Exiles of Florida. By Joshua R. Giddings. Introduction by Arthur W. 
Thompson. (Gainesville: University of Florida Press [Facsimile 
Edition]. 1964. Illustrations, index. Pp. xxx, 333. $8.50.) 

The Purchase of Florida: Its History and Diplomacy. By Hubert Bruce 
Fuller. Introduction by Weymouth T. Jordan. (Gainesville: University 
of Florida Press [Facsimile Edition] . 1964. Maps, index. Pp. xxiii, 399. 

Book Reviews 351 

Guide to Florida. By "Rambler." Introduction by Rembert W. Patrick. 
(Gainesville: University of Florida Press [Facsimile Edition]. 1964. 
Maps, illustrations, index. Pp. xix, 192. $7.50.) 

These books represent four additions to the Floridiana Facsimile 
and Reprint Series. Except for "Rambler's" Guide these volumes have 
been published to celebrate the four-hundredth anniversary of the 
founding of Saint Augustine. 

The Ribaut book is well worth reprinting. It contains Ribaut's nar- 
rative of the Huguenot expedition to Florida in 1562, a photogelatine 
copy of the 1563 text, and an excellent introduction on Ribaut by the 
bibliophile Jeannette Thurber Connor. This new edition has an es- 
pecially well-wrought introduction by Professor David Dowd. He has 
pointed out the many contributions of Mrs. Connor, updated the his- 
toriography of the French in Florida, and pursued the ethno-historical 
themes recurring in Ribaut's narrative. Typical of sixteenth-century 
chronicles about America, this short propaganda piece enthusiastically 
describes the "faire thynges," "good clymate," and "people gentill" to 
be found in the Southeast. 

The Exiles of Florida is a different type of book but equally reward- 
ing. Written by Ohio Congressman Joshua Giddings and first pub- 
lished in 1858, this work is at once an anti-slave polemic and a moving 
narrative of the plight of the Florida Negroes and Indians in the 
period 1783-1852. Giddings is an articulate abolitionist, who sees the 
American encroachments on Spanish Florida, 1783-1821, and the sub- 
sequent Seminole War as attempts by southern slave owners to recap- 
ture runaways who had found refuge among the Spaniards and In- 
dians. His is obviously a simplistic interpretation of very complex 
events, but despite his abolitionist single-mindedness, the author is 
neither overly vitriolic nor maudlin. He writes sympathetically and 
compassionately about the Florida Indians and Negroes without fall- 
ing prey to sticky sentimentalism. 

A diplomatic history of the Florida purchase, 1783-1821, Fuller's 
book of 1906 is less valuable. Outdated and incomplete, it has neither 
style nor antiquarian appeal to recommend it. Fortunately an excellent 
introduction by Weymouth T. Jordan partially rescues the book by 
pointing out its limitations and putting it in its proper historiograph- 
ical sequence. 

"Rambler's" 1875 Guide to Florida is delightful. After outlining the 
history of Florida, the anonymous traveler gives short descriptions of 
Charleston, Savannah, Saint Augustine, and towns in north Florida. 
Tantalizing accounts of excursions on the St. John's, Indian, and 

352 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Oclawaha rivers should make one realize how much has been sacri- 
ficed to time and progress. The advertisements at the end of the work 
provide an interesting commentary on the social history of the South- 
east in the late nineteenth century. 

John J. TePaske 
Ohio State University 

Loyalists and Redcoats : A Study in British Revolutionary Policy. By Paul 
H. Smith. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, for 
the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, 
Virginia, c. 1964. Preface, notes, appendix, bibliography, index. Pp. 
xii, 199. $5.00.) 

The author, assistant professor of history at the University of Nevada, 
has performed in excellent fashion the task he set out to do. For a 
hundred years after the Revolution, little was written about the Loyal- 
ists in that conflict. British historians were not interested and American 
historians devoted most of their attention to the "patriots. " Only about 
the turn of the last century did two competent scholars, Moses Coit 
Tyler and C. H. Van Tyne, tackle the subject. Since that time scores 
of researchers and writers have dealt with the topic, so that now there 
is a much clearer and fairer picture of the Loyalists than ever before. 

One major part of the subject had yet needed to be treated— the 
part of the Loyalists in British military policy. This Professor Smith 
has now given. 

"Perhaps the only accurate general statement that can be made," 
says the author, "is that the Loyalists never occupied a fixed, well- 
understood place in British strategy; plans to use them were in the 
main ad hoc. . . ." Throughout the war the British continued to over- 
estimate the "imagined strength" of the Loyalists. Thus the British 
government "failed to send adequate re-enforcements to her com- 
manders in America, who were told instead to make greater use of the 
Loyalists." In the last years of the war, in the South, the British kept 
right on counting on the Loyalists— kept looking for the aid that was 
not there— or at least never came. It was this stubborn and persistent 
searching for a chimera "that ultimately led the British to Yorktown." 

The book is of especial interest to North Carolinians, since this state 
had more Loyalists than did any other. No gifted and able leader ever 

Book Reviews 353 

sought to organize these Loyalists on a large scale and over a long 
period of time. Had such a leader appeared, the outcome might have 
been different. 

Christopher Crittenden 
State Department of Archives and History 

Colonials and Patriots: Historic Places Commemorating our Forebears 
1700-1783. By Frank B. Sarles, Jr., and Charles E. Shedd. Edited by 
John Porter Bloom and Robert M. Utley. (Washington, D. C. : United 
States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. [Volume 
VI, The National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings']. 1964. Illu- 
strations, notes, index. Pp. xvii, 286. $2.75.) 

The National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation have co-operatively produced a very fine "guidebook 
into history" as a result of the National Survey of Historic Sites and 
Buildings. The first part presents a brief historical background of 
American history for the period from 1700 to 1783, clearly and in- 
terestingly covering the highlights of the gestation and birth of a 
new nation. Well illustrated with concise maps and photographs of 
historic sites and buildings relative to the text, this section presents 
an excellent background for the National Survey of Historic Sites 
and Buildings which follows in the second part of the book. 

The second and major part of the book is designed to present a 
summary of the historic sites and landmarks of value in a study of 
America's heritage, and through these sites to lead the reader into a 
more intimate knowledge of the "third dimension" of history, the di- 
mension of place. Fifteen sites in the National Park System are dis- 
cussed followed by a list of four nonfederally owned sites of impor- 
tance. Sixty-two sites eligible for the registry of National Historic 
Landmarks are outlined, with accompanying photographs which help 
give the reader an increased awareness of place. Historic districts such 
as Old Deerfield, Massachusetts; Charleston, South Carolina; and 
Williamsburg, Virginia, are also summarized, followed by a survey of 
96 other sites considered, that are presented according to state. The 
criteria for selection of the historic sites of exceptional value are pre- 
sented, and provide the reader with the yardstick used in the survey. 

In a work of this type where the authors are by necessity forced 
to rely upon the research of others to a considerable extent, errors are 
likely to occur; one such is the placing of the Battle of Alamance in 

354 The North Carolina Historical Review 

western North Carolina in the text, but correctly placing its position 
on the map. Other errors in the section on Brunswick Town, with 
which site the reviewer is most familiar, reflect not the authors' error 
but the unreliability of the source from which they obtained their in- 
formation on the Brunswick Town site. The "Stamp Act Defiance" at 
Brunswick Town occurred in November, 1765 (which was not men- 
tioned), and was followed by another incident in February, 1766, 
which was listed as the primary incident. The church at Brunswick is 
said to have been Episcopal, which it never was, and was said to have 
been constructed from 1740 to 1765, when actually the records clearly 
indicate it was begun in 1754 and completed in 1768. The 1740 to 
1765 date comes from an unreliable source of the late nineteenth and 
early twentieth centuries. The errors in the half page on Brunswick 
Town do not, it is hoped, reflect the proportion of errors throughout 
the book, but only the unreliability of the source for this particular 

Colonials and Patriots is a fine survey of the historic places com- 
memorating our forebears, and will no doubt be carried by many 
Americans as a guidebook into history as they visit the sites. 

Stanley South 
State Department of Archives and History 

George Washington : The Virginia Period, 1732-1775. By Bernhard Knol- 
lenberg. (Durham: Duke University Press. 1964. Appendixes, bibliog- 
raphy, notes, index. Pp. x, 238. $4.50.) 

This is a simple chronological account of George Washington from 
childhood until he was chosen to serve as Commander in Chief of 
the Continental forces in 1775. It is not a debunking book of the style 
that was common fifty years ago, yet it destroys whatever was left of 
the image of young Washington, honest and truthful, who led the Vir- 
ginia militia with selfless devotion while frequently being frustrated 
by incompetent and dilatory British officials. 

Knollenberg's Washington is a man eager for commissions, power, 
fame, and money, and willing to malign his American rivals and 
British superiors whenever it served his own purposes to do so. The 
author finds that the names Governor Dinwiddie, General Forbes, and 
others have been unfairly besmirched by Washington's adverse and 

Book Reviews 355 

"untrue" comments. He accuses Washington of cheating his comrades 
in arms by obtaining for himself "the 'cream' of the land" out of the 
tract set aside by Dinwiddie's proclamation of 1754. 

The evidence presented is insufficient to justify full credence to these 
caustic criticisms of Washington. For instance he acuses Washington 
of a deliberate misstatement of fact when claiming that he had paid 
the "greater part" of the costs of obtaining the lands of the 1754 grant 
and had not been reimbursed. The record shows, says Knollenberg, 
"total direct contributions," of £180.6 of which Washington's share 
was but £ 26.5 plus, possibly, £ 12 or £ 15 for postage. The full story, 
if it could be found, might well reveal that Washington loaned to his 
fellow officers the major portion of funds listed as paid by them— 
and they may not have repaid him. It is difficult to believe that the 
character of Washington— truly magnificent in later years— could have 
been built upon beginnings as shabby as Knollenberg describes. 

The evidence of scholarly research is impressive. The 115 pages of 
textual material are supported by 57 pages of footnotes and 28 pages 
of index. Washington truly stands forth as a man of flesh and bones, 
yet one of grasping ambitions and groveling methods. The research 
was weakest at the points where Washington's character is most point- 
edly attacked. 

Gilbert L. Lycan 
Stetson University 

Naval Documents of the Revolution, Volume I. Edited by William Bell 
Clark. (Washington, D. C. : Government Printing Office, for the Naval 
History Division, United States Navy Department [projected 15 vol- 
umes, 1964 — ]. Foreword, introduction, preface, appendixes, bibliog- 
raphy, index. Pp. xliii, 1,451. $9.00.) 

This massive tome is the first of at least fifteen projected volumes 
covering the various aspects of sea power in the American Revolution. 
Volume I is the result of seven years of research and collection of ma- 
terial by the Division of Naval History, under the directorship of Rear 
Admiral E. M. Eller, who, incidentally, is a native of Wilkes County. 
An outstanding editorial job has been done by William Bell Clark, 
also a North Carolinian, a resident of Brevard. Clark, an industrialist 
turned historian, has been collecting and writing the naval history of 
the Revolution for more than a half a century, and his selection for this 
formidable task was obviously a wise one. 

356 The North Carolina Historical Review 

To quote Admiral Eller, "The meaning of the sea to the United 
States in the War for Independence has been comprehended by few 
Americans." This observation has been borne out by the fact that his- 
torians, with few exceptions, have tended to cover in some detail the 
exploits of such naval heroes as John Paul Jones to the exclusion of 
the broader impact of the influence of sea power upon the outcome of 
the struggle for independence. 

The paucity of available source materials has been responsible to a 
considerable degree for the failure of historians adequately to cover 
the importance of sea power during the Revolution. With the comple- 
tion of this long needed project by the Division of Naval History, how- 
ever, researchers will have available in the fifteen-volume series a 
major portion of the documentary evidence on the subject to be found 
on both sides of the Atlantic. 

Archival institutions, historical societies, libraries, and private collec- 
tions in the United States, Canada, and Europe have yielded a rich 
and voluminous collection of materials for this project. These include 
public and institutional records, diaries, personal letters, newspapers, 
ships' logs, and a wide variety of other documents of pertinence and 
interest. Coming as they do from both sides of the Atlantic, the docu- 
ments portray events not only as seen through American eyes but also 
from the point of view of England and other European nations as 

An interesting arrangement of the documents has been devised. They 
are arranged both chronologically and geographically. Chronologically 
the arrangement is as follows: 

American Theater: December 1, 1774-May 20, 1775 
European Theater: December 6, 1774- June 26, 1775 
American Theater: May 21, 1775-September 2, 1775 
European Theater: June 29, 1775- August 9, 1775 

Within the American Theater the geographical sequence is from 
north to south: Canada, Nova Scotia, Maine, New Hampshire, and 
so on to the West Indies. In Europe the usual sequence is, for example, 
Ireland, Scotland, England, Scandinavia, and intervening nations 
across the continent to Portugal. 

There is a foreword by the late President Kennedy, an introduction 
by Admiral Eller, and a preface by Mr. Clark. More than 150 illus- 
trations add to the value and attractiveness of the book. Finally, the 
Director of Naval History is still searching for material and will wel- 

Book Reviews 357 

come the assistance of readers who may possess, or have knowledge of, 
any documentary or iconographic material which might conceivably 
be included in subsequent volumes of the series. 

A. M. Patterson 
State Department of Archives and History 

Baroness von Riedesel and the American Revolution: Journal and Cor- 
respondence of a Tour of Duty, 1776-1783. Translated and edited by 
Marvin L. Brown, Jr., with the assistance of Marta Huth (Chapel 
Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, for the Institute of 
Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia. 1965. 
Illustrations, notes, index. Pp. xlvii, 222. $6.00.) 

The journal of Mrs. General von Riedesel, as the Baroness liked to 
be called, is one of the most charming accounts of the American 
Revolution. A story such as this chronicle of the love and devotion 
with which she and her children followed her husband, the com- 
mander of the Brunswick troops in the service of George III, to a 
strange continent and there into battle at Saratoga and subsequently 
into captivity might be more readily expected in a novel. Her observa- 
tions on her journey afford useful comparisons of dress, eating habits, 
and other social customs of the several countries through which she 
traveled. Of political comment there is a dearth, stark contrast to the 
letters of Abigail Adams, who gave similar wifely support and en- 
couragement to a leader of the other side. Mrs. "General" was a Ger- 
man aristocrat, to whom the issues of the war she helped to wage were 
another world. As a European woman and the wife of a mercenary, 
her duty was to assist her husband in whatever task he undertook. 

First published in German in 1800, the Baroness' journal and let- 
ters have been best known in English through the translation of Wil- 
liam L. Stone in 1867. In the 1930's Mrs. Marta Huth obtained access 
to the original manuscripts, which were then in the possession of 
descendants in Germany but since have disappeared in the war. Care- 
fully comparing them with the 1800 edition, Mrs. Huth copied down 
all discrepancies and omissions. Though in the case of the journal 
these were minor, there were major deletions in the published letters 
and 27 that were left out entirely. Collating these notes with the ma- 
terials previously printed, Professor Brown has prepared a completely 
new translation of the whole, the first complete edition of the 
Baroness' papers in any language. 

358 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The editorial comments, for which Professor Brown gives much 
credit to the pioneering work by Stone, are spare though adequate. 
The introduction furnishes the necessary biographical information but 
dwells too long on the story that the journal is about to tell with cor- 
respondingly less attention to matters it does not touch upon. There 
is no explanation, for example, why the British had to seek German 
aid. Moreover, the erroneous dating of the Waldeck Treaty as April, 
1775 instead of 1776, and the emphasis placed upon it, give a mis- 
leading impression of the development of British policy during the 
first year of war. In general, however, the work well satisfies the need 
for a corrected, modem translation of this intriguing journal. 

John E. Selby 
Colonial Williamsburg 

Guide to the Military Posts of the United States 1789-1895. By Francis 
Paul Prucha. (Madison: The State Historical Society of Wisconsin. 
1964. Illustrations, maps, bibliography. Pp. xiii, 178. $7.50.) 

In June, 1784, Congress resolved that 

Standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of 
Republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and 
generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism. 
. . . the commanding officer is hereby directed to discharge the troops 
now in the service of the United States except twenty-five privates to 
guard stores at Fort Pitt and fifty-five to guard stores at West Point. . . . 

Five years earlier the American flag had been hoisted at West Point, 
thus making it today the oldest American military post at which the 
flag, once raised, has never been lowered. Of particular interest to Tar- 
heels is the further fact that West Point was permanently acquired by 
the United States from its owner, Stephen Moore of Caswell County, 
by Act of Congress approved July 5, 1790. 

The foregoing information is, regrettably, not to be found in Father 
Prucha's book, although Fort Pitt is described as one of "only six estab- 
lishments on the western frontier that could in any sense be considered 
military posts" when President George Washington assumed office in 
1789. By this statement, the author, associate professor of history at 
Marquette University and writer of several works dealing with the 
westward expansion of the United States, provides a clue to the real 
nature of the present volume. Despite its all-encompassing and rather 

Book Reviews 359 

misleading title, the book is a brief reference manual concerned almost 
exclusively with some 467 army installations associated with the exten- 
sion of this country's land frontiers. This figure is less than one-tenth 
the number of posts, camps, and stations listed in the records of the 
Department of the Army for the period covered by the book. 

The work comprises five parts: a lengthy introduction treats the 
subject of the country's "military frontier"; an alphabetical catalog of 
the posts involved in United States territorial expansion; a series of 
excellent maps showing the locations of these posts; a series of ap- 
pendixes; and, finally, a select bibliography. 

Those who consult this book may be confused, not only by its in- 
accurate title, but by the ephemeral nature of much of its subject 
matter. This country's military installations during the period under 
study were often subject to a bewildering number of deactivations, 
reactivations, relocations, and name changes. While Father Prucha's 
work affords some help in clarifying these developments, this help is 
often inadequate. For example, Fort Bragg, California, which was ac- 
tive from 1857 to 1864 is included in the catalog, but no mention is 
made of the present-day installation of the same name in North Caro- 
lina because the latter post was established after the closing date of 
the study. In like fashion, Fort Custer, Montana, established in 1877 
( and shown as still active, which seems doubtful ) is included whereas 
Fort Custer, Michigan, constructed during World War I, is ignored. 

Specialists in the study of the westward movement of the American 
people following the Revolution and throughout the nineteenth cen- 
tury will find this book useful. 

John D. F. Phillips 


Jacksonian Democracy and the Historians. By Alfred A. Cave. (Gaines- 
ville: University of Florida Press. 1964. University of Florida Mono- 
graphs, Social Sciences, No. 22. Pp. 88. $2.00, paper.) 

In recent years Charles G. Sellers, Jr., Harry Stevens, and John 
W. Ward have written short essays on Jacksonian historiography. Now 
Alfred A. Cave, in a revision of his 1961 doctoral dissertation at the 
University of Florida, has produced a fuller and more comprehensive 
guide to the historical literature dealing with the Jacksonian move- 
ment. This is the third study dealing with Jacksonian politics to be 
published in the University of Florida Monographs series, originated 

360 The North Carolina Historical Review 

in 1959. The other two were Herbert J. Doherty, The Whigs of Florida 
(1959), and Arthur W. Thompson, Jacksonian Democracy on the 
Florida Frontier (1961). 

The scope of this study is regrettably more limited than that of 
Cave's original dissertation, which also included discussion of the 
Jacksonian movement as seen by the Whigs and Democrats of Jack- 
son's own day. Cave noted in his earlier study that "many of the 
major interpretations of the meaning and significance of the Jackson- 
ian political struggles were first advanced, in highly incomplete and 
greatly exaggerated form, by the historical actors themselves and may 
be found in the sources of the period." 

Cave, who does not espouse any particular interpretation of the 
Jacksonian era, emphasizes that "a pronounced degree of presentism' 
. . . has always characterized the historiography of Jacksonian Democ- 
racy." While maintaining that recent scholars have "evinced a higher 
degree of sophistication in handling source materials and a greater 
degree of detachment" than earlier historians, he does not believe 
that "the passage of time will totally efface the partisan conflict of 
Whig versus Jacksonian." "By careful effort," he says, "the historian 
may minimize the distortions of the past produced by his own par- 
tisanship and by the frame of reference of the present; as a competent 
scholar he should struggle to do so. It is doubtful, however, that he 
will completely succeed." 

Edwin A. Miles 

University of Houston 

Albert Sidney Johnston: Soldier of Three Republics. By Charles P. 
Roland. (Austin: The University of Texas Press. 1964. Illustrations, 
maps, bibliography, index. Pp. xi, 384. $6.50.) 

Proponents of Albert Sidney Johnston will find no laudatory ac- 
count of their hero in Professor Roland's study, but they will discover 
a full-length, sympathetic biography. More than two-thirds of the 
book describes the career of Johnston from his birth in Kentucky until 
his resignation as commander of the Pacific Department of the United 
States Army. His work as a Confederate general is told in four chap- 
ters, two of them relating to the loss of important river forts and the 
others detailing the Shiloh campaign. 

In youth and early manhood, Johnston relied on his half brother, 
Josiah Stoddard Johnston, for advice and help. From him he received 

Book Reviews 361 

an appointment to the United States Military Academy where he as- 
sociated with his juniors— Jefferson Davis, Joseph E. Johnston, and 
Robert E. Lee— whom he later joined in Confederate service. But 
Albert Sidney turned to Josiah Stoddard for direction and approbation 
in questions of marriage, service on the frontier against the Indians, 
and resignation from the army. After the sudden death of his mentor 
and the loss of his first wife, the foot-loose Johnston found haven and 
responsible positions in Texas. He brought his second wife, began a 
second family, and put down roots in the Lone Star State. The annexa- 
tion of Texas and the Mexican War gave him the opportunity to satisfy 
a yearning to smite the Mexicans for their "perfidy and brutality to- 
ward Texas." As commander of the Texas volunteers he won fame at 
Monterrey. After the war, neither his land speculation nor his planta- 
tion operation brought him financial rewards. 

The salary as paymaster for a part of the Department of Texas en- 
ticed Johnston back into federal service. Success in this arduous task 
led to his most important assignment as a United States officer: com- 
mand of the forces sent to subdue the Mormons. While he chafed 
because of delays and wanted to test the Mormons in battle, he main- 
tained a disciplined soldiery and reluctantly accepted compromise 
without bloodshed. He was transferred from Utah to the Pacific, and 
later resigned his commission as brevet brigadier general and traveled 
eastward to seek assignment in the southern army. On arriving at 
Richmond in September, 1861, Davis made Johnston the ranking 
field general of the Confederacy and assigned him command of most 
of the trans- Appalachian region. 

Nothing in his previous military experience had prepared Johnston 
for the task ahead. In Professor Roland's opinion, Johnston "made the 
most grievous error of military judgment in his career" by hesitating 
between the decision to defend or abandon Fort Donelson. Although 
a want of boldness and ingenuity lost this and other river forts, the 
author claims that the plan, his will to fight, and the courage he 
demonstrated in the Shiloh campaign should rank Johnston high 
among Confederate commanders. 

There are deficiencies in this biography. Neither the causes of the 
"Mormon War" nor the settlement of it are adequately explained. On 
the whole, however, this biography is a well-researched and well-writ- 
ten addition to Civil War literature. 

Rembert W. Patrick 

University of Florida 

362 The North Carolina Historical Review 

Infernal Machines : The Story of Confederate Submarine and Mine War- 
fare. By Milton F. Perry. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University 
Press. 1965. Illustrations, notes, index. Pp. xi, 231. $5.95.) 

On December 12, 1862, while cruising up the muddy Yazoo River, 
the Federal gunboat "Cairo" struck two floating mines and sank in a 
matter of minutes. On May 12, 1865, another of the Confederates' 
"torpedoes" bumped against the hull of the "R. B. Hamilton" and sent 
that Federal transport to the bottom of Mobile Bay. 

These were but the first and last victims of Confederate devices em- 
ployed against Union warships patrolling the rivers and harbors of the 
South. These "infernal machines" included a variety of torpedoes 
(mines), such torpedo boats as the "David," and H. L. Hunley's 
famous submarine. All told, these novel instruments of destruction 
sank more Federal vessels than did the entire Confederate navy. 
Numbered among the "kills" were the 32-gun frigate "New Ironsides" 
and the 1,034-ton monitor "Tecumseh." 

In this narrative history Milton Perry presents the first compre- 
hensive story of Confederate countermeasures against the ever-press- 
ing Federal fleets. All of the necessary ingredients in the story are 
here— the inventors, the many early failures, the countless experiments, 
the few but spectacular successes. The scenes of action shift from 
Norfolk, Virginia, to Galveston, Texas, and from the tributaries of the 
Mississippi to the inland waters of the Roanoke. The subject matter 
and the author's fresh style together make this a volume of fascinating 
reading, in spite of an occasional paragraph of overly technical data. 

A slight imbalance of material is the book's only weakness. Too 
much discussion is given to weapons that were pathetic failures. 
Conversely, Farragut's immortal damning of the torpedoes in Mobile 
Bay receives only cursory attention; and the sinking at Plymouth of 
the Confederate ram "Albemarle"— which the author himself terms 
"the most celebrated torpedoing of the war"— gets but a passing refer- 
ence. The book's subtitle clearly defines it as a work on Confederate 
weapons; yet no treatment of the subject of torpedoes can justifiably 
skim over these most famous episodes. 

This is a relatively small flaw in an otherwise commendable study. 
For the pleasure-reader, this volume will have popular appeal. For 
the historian— once he is accustomed to the footnotes piled together at 
the back, Infernal Machines is a new reference guide to southern in- 
genuity in the 1860's. 

James I. Robertson, Jr. 

United States Civil War Centeninal Commission 

Book Reviews 363 

The American Civil War: An English View. By Field Marshal Viscount 
Wolseley. Edited by James A. Rawley. (Charlottesville, Virginia: The 
University Press of Virginia. 1964. Introduction, notes, index. Pp. 
xxxvii, 230. $5.00.) 

This book is a compilation of the writings on the American Civil 
War by the noted British soldier, Field Marshal Viscount Wolseley. 
In 1862 Wolseley was a lieutenant colonel in the British army stationed 
in Canada. Here he followed with great interest the massive struggle 
going on to the south of him. Soon after the Antietam campaign com- 
menced, he managed to have himself smuggled into the Confederacy, 
where he inspected the city of Richmond and visited Lee and Jackson 
in the field. Out of this experience came his only piece of contemporary 
writing, "A Months Visit to the Confederate Headquarters." Later, 
however, Wolseley vividly recalled his interview with Lee and wrote 
an extremely laudatory sketch of the General which Douglas S. 
Freeman called a "classic of Confederate literature." In the 1880's at 
the request of the editor of the North American Review he also wrote 
a series of seven articles on the newly published Battles and Leaders 
of the Civil War. 

As a professional soldier, Wolseley was "drawn first and foremost 
to the strategy and tactics employed by the combatants." Jackson's 
Valley campaign excited his highest admiration. Wolseley's "reflec- 
tions upon strategic and tactical noteworthiness of the American Civil 
War are perhaps his most consequential contribution. At the same 
time he . . . discerned valuable lessons in the example of noble lives. 
To Wolseley the figure of R. E. Lee transcended all others on the 
American scene; he found him the greatest soldier of the age. . . ." 

The third great lesson Wolseley read in the war was the need of the 
United States and England to have "a well-organized standing army 
in the highest state of efficiency and composed of thoroughly trained 
and full-grown men." Finally, he "found instruction in the Civil-mili- 
tary relationships that existed on both sides in the war." 

Professor Rawley's lengthy introduction is excellent. It contains not 
only a sketch of Wolseley's military career but also a penetrating and 
thorough analysis of his writings. 

John G. Barrett 

Virginia Military Institute 

364 The North Carolina Historical Review 

The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877. By Kenneth M. Stampp. (New 
York : Alfred A. Knopf. 1965. Bibliographical note, index. Pp. ix, 229. 

This well organized monograph, without footnotes except when 
recent historical works are quoted but with ample discussion of biblio- 
graphical materials following the conclusion of the narrative, is a re- 
vision of the lectures given by the author at the University of London 
in 1960. 

The book begins with an analysis of the factors which led many 
authors to portray the Reconstruction period in an unfavorable vein. 
There follows a discussion of Lincoln, with emphasis on his conserva- 
tive background, and of Johnson as a political composite of various 
ideas which would determine his attitude as president. The forces 
that resulted in the implementation of Radical reconstruction are ex- 
amined at some length and those that were responsible for its undoing 
receive due treatment. 

The author challenges what he calls "The Tragic Legend of Recon- 
struction" and, as a revisionist, goes a long way in the other direction. 
Instead of viewing as unwise and precipitate the great civil and poli- 
tical revolution fashioned for the South by force within two years 
after the slaves were freed, he is sympathetic to that revolution, though 
granting some shortcomings. His view is defended on the ground that 
the southern states would not give equal civil and political rights to 
the Negro; that Johnson was co-operating with the political leaders of 
the old South (for whom Professor Stampp seems to have a special 
dislike ) in withholding these rights and that the only way they could 
be attained was by federal compulsion. The author holds that various 
motives, including political and economic ones, were behind the Radi- 
cal program, but emphasizes the moral one. He grants that the idealism 
which he feels was so pronounced in the 186Q's had largely disap- 
peared ten years later but concludes that Congressional reconstruction 
was quite worthwhile, since its creations, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 
Amendments, were, after the lapse of many years, vital in connection 
with the struggle for Negro rights. 

There are conspicuous gaps in the monograph. The "Black Codes" 
are unequivocally condemned as purposely designed to oppress the 
Negro, but no explanation is given of the labor conditions, produced 
in part by activities of the Freedmen's Bureau, which led to codes 
regulating contracts and vagrancy. Hostility to Negro suffrage in the 
North, limitations upon white suffrage in the South and the activities 

Book Reviews 365 

of Union Leagues in the South have significance in the Reconstruc- 
tion controversy far out of proportion to the scant attention paid them. 

Henry H. Simms 

The Ohio State University 

A Century of Dishonor : The Early Crusade for Indian Reform. By Helen 
Hunt Jackson. Edited by Andrew F. Rolle. (New York, Evanston, and 
London: Harper and Row. 1965. Harper Torchbooks. Pp. xxii, 342. 

"The question of the honorableness of the United States' dealings 
with the Indians," wrote Helen Hunt Jackson, "turns largely on a 
much disputed and little understood point. What was the nature of 
the Indians' right to the country in which they were living when the 
continent of North America was discovered?" 

In her conclusion, she wrote, "Cheating, robbing, breaking prom- 
ises—these three are clearly things which must cease to be done. One 
more thing, also, and that is the refusal of the protection of the law to 
the Indian's rights of property, life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- 

"When these four things have ceased to be done, time, statesman- 
ship, philanthropy, and Christianity can slowly and surely do the 
rest. Till these four things have ceased to be done, statesmanship and 
philanthropy alike must work in vain, and even Christianity can reap 
but small harvest." 

Between these paragraphs Helen Hunt Jackson poured forth more 
than 300 pages of impassioned words, a vivid catalog of wrongs done 
to a much-abused minority group. The tribes covered were the Dela- 
wares, Cheyennes, Nez Perces, Sioux, Poncas, Winnebagoes, and 
Cherokees. A childhood friend of Emily Dickinson, she did not turn 
to writing until after the loss of her husband, Major Edward B. Hunt, 
and two sons. In 1865, at the age of thirty-five, she began writing 
books and articles under various pseudonyms. Although she wrote 
more than 30 books, only two of them are remembered today: the 
present study and Ramona. 

In 1879, after her marriage to William Sharpless Jackson, she at- 
tended a lecture in which the Ponca Chief Standing Bear recounted 
the sufferings of the Plains tribes. Though her first husband had lost 
his life during the Civil War, she had never been aroused over the 

366 The North Carolina Historical Review 

fate of the freedmen. The Indians were a more suitable subject for a 
romantic, and she embraced their cause with tremendous enthusiasm, 
eloquence, and righteous indignation. 

There is no doubt that American treatment of the Indians has been 
callous, brutal, and characterized more by indifference than by a sense 
of justice. It has also appeared, at least from a distance, that the 
makers of Indian policy were rogues and scoundrels. Recent research, 
such as that of Father Prucha, has raised doubts as to the basic villainy 
of nineteenth-century Congressmen, and has made it necessary to con- 
sider the possibility that they may have been trying to treat the In- 
dians by prevailing standards of justice. Whatever their motives, for 
the Indians the results were calamitous. 

Donald E. Worcester 

Texas Christian University 

Atlantic Hurricanes. By Gordon E. Dunn and Banner I. Miller. (Louisi- 
ana : State University Press. Revised edition. 1964. Illustrations, tables, 
figures, index. Pp. v, 377. $7.50.) 

Authors Dunn and Miller are particularly qualified by background 
and occupation to write an all-encompassing text on hurricanes. Dunn 
is Chief Meteorologist and Miller Research Meteorologist of the Na- 
tional Hurricane Center at Miami. Their aim, "the diffcult task of 
explaining the complicated facets of the hurricane for the layman 
while giving a reasonably technical and scientific, although nonmathe- 
matical, description of their physical processes for the student," is ac- 
complished in the later intent, but this lay reader admits to difficulty 
in comprehending the technical aspects. Many figures, charts, and 
tables give detailed explanation and illustration of facts and theories 
outlined. The average reader, however, will probably derive more 
information from general definitions of scientific terms, eye witness 
accounts, and historical chronology. 

The importance of classifying tropical storms is stressed and further 
developed in a chapter concerning their characteristics. Hurricane 
formation is explained in an enumeration of five essential steps to de- 
velopment and seven principal conditions favorable to culmination. 
In writing of the establishment of a hurricane warning system, the 
history of forecasting is traced from Christopher Columbus' entry in 
his logbook to the invention of wireless and radio with consequent 

Book Reviews 367 

means of transmitting observational data from oceanic and tropical 
areas. Elaborating on the techniques of forecasting, the authors con- 
clude that few are completely objective and prediction is still more 
art than skill. 

"Nature on the loose," in all its destructive force, is graphically il- 
lustrated by examples of wind and water damage in three of the most 
destructive storms in American history— the Charleston storm of 1893, 
the Galveston tidal wave of 1900, and the Florida Keys hurricane of 
1935. More recent hurricanes, such as Hazel in 1954 and Helene in 
1958, are described in detail. 

Recent advances include collection and recording of "million bits" 
of data, giving a fairly complete description of the structure of a ma- 
ture hurricane, but perhaps the most spectacular development in me- 
teorology is the use of artificial earth satellites in photographing cloud 

Appendixes include a glossary of meteorological terms, 31 tables list- 
ing hurricanes affecting the United States, and a chronological account 
of hurricanes of the twentieth century. A list of references gives titles 
to writings of individuals mentioned in the text. Subject and name 
indexes are very brief. 

Beth G. Crabtree 

State Department of Archives and History 

Wilson: Confusions and Crises, 1915-1916. By Arthur S. Link (Prince- 
ton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 1964. Illustrations, notes, 
index. Pp. xiv, 386. $8.00.) 

This is Professor Link's fourth volume in his monumental biography 
of Woodrow Wilson; he continues the sympathetic treatment of Wil- 
son that has characterized his previous volumes. As heretofore he 
gives proof of having done meticulous research, not only in American 
archives but also in those of Great Britain, France, and Germany. As 
always, he has made an excellent selection of facts to support his 
thesis and to reveal the perplexing personality of his subject. This 
volume is devoted almost wholly to foreign affairs; Wilsonian diplo- 
macy from 1915 to mid-1916 is scrutinized. 

In 1915 Wilson decided to initiate a preparedness program which 
threw consternation into the ranks of both the Bryan pacifists and 
the Progressives. With Bryan speaking over the country and with a 
stubborn opposition appearing in Congress, Wilson went to the coun- 

368 The North Carolina Historical Keview 

try in a series of around the circle speeches. The people, the President 
learned, depended on him to keep the nation out of the European 

Early in 1916 President Wilson sent his trusted friend Colonel 
Edward M. House to Europe to confer with ranking officials of Eng- 
land, Germany, and France about peace and the possibility of the 
United States acting as mediator. House found selfishness, cant, stub- 
bornness, and incompetent statesmanship generally; his efforts were 
actually opposed by Walter Hines Page, the American Ambassador 
to England. Certainly, House was incorrect when, upon returning 
to the United States, he informed the President that his plan for 
American mediation was immediately acceptable. 

Wilson and Secretary Lansing sought to have the Allies disarm 
merchant vessels in the belief that the German submarines would not 
sink an unarmed ship. England refused because she said Germany 
would then sink all ships. The President hoped that unarmed ships 
could pave the way for mediation under the House-Grey Memo- 
randum. Such, however, was not to be the case. 

The President was at loggerheads with Congressional leaders over 
the McLemore and the Gore Resolutions advising Americans to stay 
off belligerent ships, armed and traveling on the high seas. By the 
use of German sources Professor Link was able to give an objective 
analysis of these issues. This reviewer, however, believes there are 
too many long quotations from too many documents. The author 
could have written a more effective narrative had he paraphrased 
much of the documentary material quoted. 

In several German submarine crises Wilson was handicapped in 
dealing effectively with the German government by the ineffective- 
ness of the ambassadors in Berlin, by the attitude of the German am- 
bassador in Washington who believed that Wilson was only bent 
on re-election in 1916, and by the strong pro-English proclivities of 
Secretary Lansing. Although, as Link shows clearly, Wilson's states- 
manship was tested severely, he won ultimately. In May, 1916, Ger- 
many agreed to withhold relentless submarine warfare. Lauded by 
the American press for his powerful pen Wilson became, for the first 
time, a principal actor in the European tragedy. 

As the European plot thickened, America careened toward war 
with Mexico. Despite Villa's raids on American soil, and the clamor 
for war with Mexico, Wilson said stubbornly: "There won't be any 
war with Mexico if I can prevent it." Sending Pershing into Mexico in 
search of the elusive Villa, the President announced that America 

Book Reviews 369 

would not infringe on Mexico's sovereignty, nor protect American 
property in Mexico. In his effort to capture and punish Villa, Wilson 
failed. When Carranza opposed Pershing's punitive expeditions and 
almost caused war, Wilson went before Congress and explained the 

This well written book ends with a domestic note in which the 
author deals with Wilson's decision to make the Democratic party 
more liberal than formerly and with the legislative program which he 
prevailed upon Congress to enact. Confusions were replaced with cer- 
titudes in both domestic and foreign policies and Wilson gave evi- 
dence that future crises would be met with courage and resolve. 

George Osborn 
University of Florida 

F.D.R. and the South. By Frank Freidel. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State 
University Press. 1965. Pp. x, 102. $3.25.) 

This book, consisting of the three Walter Lynwood Fleming lec- 
tures delivered at Louisiana State University in 1964, is the result of 
Professor Freidel's mature scholarship on Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 
directed toward the President's special relationship to the South dur- 
ing the days of the New Deal. In the first essay Roosevelt, the gentle- 
man farmer, is depicted at Warm Springs discussing the problems of 
the local farmers, and occasionally suggesting experiments to his 
neighbors or trying them himself. Southern poverty etched itself 
sharply on his mind and influenced later decisions. The author con- 
stantly refers to Roosevelt as a progressive, yet also maintains that 
"First, last, and always he was a thoroughgoing Jeffersonian Demo- 
crat" who wished to overcome the urban-rural schism in the Demo- 
cratic party, concepts which seem somewhat contradictory. 

In the second lecture, entitled "The New Deal versus Bourbonism," 
Professor Freidel describes the initial support of the new President by 
the "Bourbon" members of Congress and points out their gradual 
cooling off as the status quo was threatened through changing wage 
scales, slum clearance projects, and electric power programs. The 
interplay between F.D.R. and Carter Glass, B. Patton Harrison, Joseph 
T. Robinson, and Josiah W. Bailey is neatly handled. However, the 
brief mention of Bourbon fear of government spending is inadequate. 
The focus should be sharpened on the conflict between the men who 

370 The North Carolina Historical Review 

wanted to save money and the voters who for the first time had more 
cash money than they had seen for years. 

The final lecture considers the civil rights dilemma faced by the 
President. The newly-won northern urban Negro vote might spell 
the difference between victory and defeat, yet the South could not be 
disregarded. The chief battleground was the proposed anti-lynching 
law, which the President characteristically solved by applying pragma- 
tism. The author concludes that Roosevelt "somehow pursued a policy 
not entirely repugnant to either side and did so with considerable 
dignity and decency." In the reviewer's opinion, however, this lecture 
is a concession to concern with present civil rights problems rather 
than a correct interpretation of the situation at the time. The 
author seems to attribute Bourbon opposition to federal spending 
to the fear of upsetting the racial status quo, i